RE: agnostic or atheist?

RE: agnostic or atheist? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

pyroaquatic -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/12/2010 12:34:04 PM)
Intelligent Post. :D It is funny that you mention time travel... The very act of doing so (if it were possible) would place bacteria and other single celled organisms on the earth... thus starting Life. God promotes science and scientists if such a being exists. Empirical Observations aside..... My belief is that God destroyed itself creating a big BANG from singularity (wholeness). The very fact that we are speaking of a higher power must attest to a form of an Incomplete God Consciousness. In other words... God does not exist yet. We are in the process of reconstructing God. Scientists and Believers emulate the (varied) concept of an omnipotent being. Look at our external neural net (internet) and tell me we do not attempt to emulate God. Emergence is also important in this regard. From simple blocks of GATC form the 'complexities' and 'phenomenon' we observe and attempt to understand. Does anyone share this opinion with me?

catfightservice -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/12/2010 5:14:36 PM)
Ok guys and gals, thank you for all your comments, and insight. Its been great. Im finished with this thread. Catch my next one that will be titled"Republican, Democrat, or Independent?" followed by "Yes or No to gay marriage", and "Pro life, Pro Choice?" untill next time, onward and upward

eihwaz -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/12/2010 6:01:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: So call it an assumption, then, rather than a faith. It is well known and uncontroversial that science assumes this. The Intelligent Design notion is formed by adding ergo the universe must have been created by an omnipotent, "Intelligent Designer." The latter proposition is not, IMHO, properly a scientific question, therefore not provable or disprovable by the scientific method. I say this as a person of faith. Thank you. I am much more comfortable with "assumptions." NTW! Anytime! [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Unfortunately, many with political agenda try to make ID a scientific concept. Agreed, this is unfortunate. As you know, ID is creationism repackaged and rebranded. It confuses science and faith, logos and mythos, which are two very different ways of knowing. Most pernicious is the corruption of science textbooks in the US. As you're probably aware, evolutionary theory is a problem mainly if not solely for Biblical literalists. Most branches of Christianity accept evolution as valid. Karen Armstrong in The Battle for God, observes (quoted in at least one other of the "science versus religion" types of threads on cm): quote: [A] literal reading of Scripture is... a modern preoccupation, springing from the prevalence of the rational over the mythical consciousness. Before the modern period, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all relished highly allegorical, symbolic, and esoteric interpretations of their sacred texts. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML While the question cannot be properly tested as a scientific hypothesis do you not think, even as a person of faith, that those who put it forward have the burden of providing either evidence or reason to support their claim If they're advancing ID as a scientific claim, most definitely yes. If it's a claim of faith, then no. And if the latter, it most certainly shouldn't be the basis for public policy! To me, ID is self-evident. But that knowledge -- which is not scientific or even rational -- is a matter of personal belief and experience. Not only can't I prove it, I don't see any need to. (I also have no right to impose my beliefs on anybody else.) eyesopened elaborates the difference between rational thought and faith quite cogently in a series of posts at the beginning of this thread.

eihwaz -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/12/2010 6:02:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catfightservice Catch my next one that will be titled"Republican, Democrat, or Independent?" followed by "Yes or No to gay marriage", and "Pro life, Pro Choice?" Can't wait! [:D]

vincentML -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/12/2010 8:22:34 PM)
quote: To me, ID is self-evident. But that knowledge -- which is not scientific or even rational -- is a matter of personal belief and experience. Not only can't I prove it, I don't see any need to. (I also have no right to impose my beliefs on anybody else.) And of course there is the rub .... where literalist theology becomes political action in an attempt to influence textbooks and classrooms and with some success as you know. We pretty much have no disagreement except on the personal belief of ID. I do not wish to debate the relative merits of personal belief/experience vs scientific/rational. You have pretty much taken that off the table anyway. But I do have a question regarding your belief in a well-ordered Universe created by an Intelligent Designer, if you will indulge me. I wonder how you can hold that belief in the face of such a long history of natural evil where innocent children have suffered grieviously from hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and etc. Or am I wrongly presuming you know that your Designer is benevolent? I suspect this question is not new to you and I am not trying to lay a trap of any kind. I am interested in your answer and I do not intend to debate it only accept it as your answer. Why do innocents suffer so much at the hands of Nature? Is the Designer careless in his design, malevolent in his intent, or just indifferent? Much appreciate the discourse.

Aylee -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/12/2010 9:34:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: belladevine A cubit is not a linear measurement. A cubit is a box shape of specific dimensions. A cubit is a geometric square. You are incorrect. I have already answered what a cubit is on the first page of this thread. What you are describing is a cube. A dictionary can be your friend.

juliaoceania -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/12/2010 10:38:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catfightservice Ill start off by asking how many others are agnostic or atheist out there? Im guessing in the fetish world there is quite a few. Myself...I think the bible is a great story, but i dont believe it. I mean who seriously believes noah built an ark to hold two of every animal? Come on!!! we couldn't even do that today. Imagine with hand tools? Part the red sea? jonah and the whale? tower of babylon? God created the heaven and earth? what about themillions of other galaxies, who made them? The bible doesnt talk about dinosaurs. Some people put so much faith in the bible, but keep this in mind. When they wrote that book they still thought the earth was flat. How many of their other beliefs can we debunk? I dont mean to offend anyone of any religion. Id just like to get the facts straight. I find this a false dichotomy, you are stating that the only proper way to conceive of the Sacred is a belief in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Well, I reject that assertion... I am a spiritual person, and I reject other people's boxes that seek to define me, or anyone else for that matter

belladevine -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 12:23:39 AM)
Just one more thing......you can not use an approximate measurement to build a great pyramid or any other building. The measurement of a mans finger to his elbow is not specific. THE EXACT MEASUREMENT MUST BE SPECIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR THE BUILDER OR (MOSY USUALLY) THE ARCHITECT.

thishereboi -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 6:51:22 AM)
quote: I dont ridicule people for their beliefs. I ridicule the beliefs themselves. I totally respect everyone for their religion. I just question the authenticity of the bible, and god that they believe in. Oh ok, I understand now. In that case the next time you hear someone say.... quote: "oh they are into bondage.....ew......" or "they are into whips and being tied up... what freaks...". remember they are not knocking you personally for your kink, they are just ridiculing the kink itself. It's all good then.[:)]

GotSteel -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 7:07:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl oh gee, another male with a wad problem. Steel, would not matter if i said emphatically that i didnt believe it... you would, of course, find a way to twist it all to suit your atheistic views. and you call religious people narrow minded. i am open to the possibility, nothing more. The OP mentioned the arc, i offered an opinion given by some that it may have been found... offered up the site which clearly states they are not giving out proof... and yet you seem to believe that i hold that information as accurate and factual. You posted a link to a story about evangelicals who claim that they have found the ark to a 99.9% degree of certainty and then started going off about the historical accuracy and truth of the bible. Three pages later is a little too soon for all this revisionist history. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Hmmm.. lets see. How did the walls of Jericho get built? The pyramids? I dunno, do you, without a doubt ? I can honestly say, no one knows without a doubt. They have theories, they have ideas, but to have certain knowledge requires a time machine. I'm not asking for certain knowledge, a legitimate theory would be great. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl As far as the animals on board.... i would think it would include those indegenous to the area. But i have no proof that is true... nor do you that it is not. As far as the flood, its been presented that the flood was a local one. But, of course, those on the arc would not assume it was just a local one. Nor would they have much knowledge of the grand scope of the earth's surface. Again, i have no proof of this, nor do you have any proof its not a correct theory. I do have proof that it's not a correct theory because it's not a theory at this point you've even abandoned having a hypothesis. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I prefer a lets wait and see attitude. You're misrepresenting yourself in a couple of these statements. First of all you don't take a "wait and see attitude" that would be agnosticism. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And i simply smile, say a little prayer for you and continue to believe as i do.. as will you. Secondly, if this is what was actually happening you wouldn't be here making personal attacks at me. Also if you believe that neither of us will change our positions why would you bother debating?

juliaoceania -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 7:56:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: I dont ridicule people for their beliefs. I ridicule the beliefs themselves. I totally respect everyone for their religion. I just question the authenticity of the bible, and god that they believe in. Oh ok, I understand now. In that case the next time you hear someone say.... quote: "oh they are into bondage.....ew......" or "they are into whips and being tied up... what freaks...". remember they are not knocking you personally for your kink, they are just ridiculing the kink itself. It's all good then.[:)] Or how about people that judge those who do not believe in God as living in sin, going to hell, etc... you know how they say "we hate the sin and not the sinner"... same damn thing as what she said in my mind

rulemylife -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 8:05:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz First, to the best of my recollection, Newton didn't propound any "theory of gravity." He did identify (quantify) what we refer to today as the Law of Gravity, though. Then I guess these guys are some really dumbfucks: News for theory of gravity by newton A fragment of the apple tree said to have inspired Isaac Newton's theory of gravity will this week fly on space shuttle Atlantis's STS-132 mission to the International Space Station.

rulemylife -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 8:23:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Despite all attempts at logical reasoning for or/and against, I feel there is something, something which defies the logic and that something has become my spirituality, a spirituality that has no definition out there save my own, and that is constantly changing as I discover and consider more. I encompass influences from many different beliefs as I do have a sneaky suspicion that this truth we all seek is scattered amongst all beliefs and for enlightenment,we have to take all to find the way ahead. So atheist, agnostic, sometimes, pantheistic and monotheistic sometimes, eastern belief and western belief, sometimes, I just have to say I am everything and nothing, but it is for me to define my own path when the mood takes me. I wonder about the Vimans of ancient India and modern UFO's, I wonder about ooparts and recorded mythologies, some of which bear a striking resemblance even when science tells us the cultures were always apart. I wonder about the pyramids, the ever so precise mathematics and technologies we believe were available at the time. I wonder about the baghdad batteries and descriptions of primitive accumulators and the writings of Ezekiel. One thing I have discerned, is what we know of our world is very little and the histories defined or assumed might not be the truth or even a fraction of it, we simply do not know enough, have found enough or understood enough. It's a bright world of discoveries out there for those that seek. So because we know so little that is justification for believing in whatever gets us through the day?

rulemylife -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 8:29:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Aneirin, the image I posted is from the Filipino Easter crucifixion ritual. See: Filipinos whipped and nailed to crosses in terrifyingly realistic re-enactment of the Crucifixion There's no kink like religious kink.

rulemylife -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 8:41:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dubbelganger Rulemylife: "I'm sure Tampa has a few libraries but if you don't want to make the trip there is a wonderful thing called the internet. " I'm an Atheist and I accept that Evolution is a fact, but you don't get off that easily. You made the assertion that there is a direct, demonstrable, proveable causility chain from amino acids to Homo Sapiens sapiens. It's up to you to show that your assertion is valid. I'm not sure if you are replying to me since the little thing in the right hand corner said you were replying to someone else. But I'll have a go at it. My assertion was there is enough evidence to support the theory and very little to support that God waved his magic wand 6,000 years and created Adam at the same time he created the dinosaurs. As far as proving the assertion that is why I referenced the internet and the library. Do you honestly expect me to provide that volume of information on a message board?

juliaoceania -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 8:46:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Dubbelganger Rulemylife: "I'm sure Tampa has a few libraries but if you don't want to make the trip there is a wonderful thing called the internet. " I'm an Atheist and I accept that Evolution is a fact, but you don't get off that easily. You made the assertion that there is a direct, demonstrable, proveable causility chain from amino acids to Homo Sapiens sapiens. It's up to you to show that your assertion is valid. I'm not sure if you are replying to me since the little thing in the right hand corner said you were replying to someone else. But I'll have a go at it. My assertion was there is enough evidence to support the theory and very little to support that God waved his magic wand 6,000 years and created Adam at the same time he created the dinosaurs. As far as proving the assertion that is why I referenced the internet and the library. Do you honestly expect me to provide that volume of information on a message board? As someone who does not believe that evolution is incongruous with an omnipotent creator I have to say that evolution is a theory. It is a good theory. It has much substantiation, but there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from. There is plenty enough room on this message board to address what he said, because we truly do not know the mechanisms that caused life. If it were as scientists suggest, a change reaction of amino acids, well we have never recreated it in the lab, and that to me is telling, if that was how it happened then science should be able to recreate life from amino acids and they can't

GotSteel -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 9:18:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania As someone who does not believe that evolution is incongruous with an omnipotent creator I have to say that evolution is a theory. It is a good theory. It has much substantiation, but there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from. You've got your theories mixed up, evolution isn't about "where the spark of life comes from". Your issue is no more valid than calling evolution incomplete because it doesn't explain how gravity works.

asiansubmissie -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 9:53:14 AM)
The "riiight. What's a cubit" thing was explained to me in my collarme mail. Bill Cosby did a skit on the olden days where God told Noah to build an ark and gather up the animals. Bill Cosby, as Noah, said "uh huh" to all the arcane weights and measures, and in the end said "Whats a cubit". At least that was what was explained to me. I googled for the youtube and was surprised not to find it anywhere.

juliaoceania -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 9:53:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania As someone who does not believe that evolution is incongruous with an omnipotent creator I have to say that evolution is a theory. It is a good theory. It has much substantiation, but there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from. You've got your theories mixed up, evolution isn't about "where the spark of life comes from". Your issue is no more valid than calling evolution incomplete because it doesn't explain how gravity works. I am addressing the post of the person before me. The conversation between the two individuals discussing evolution and life insinuated the two were analogous, and you are right, they are not. Bacteria evolve, this is a proven fact. There is much in the fossil record to support evolution. My point is simply this, all the data supporting evolution does not explain how life began in the first place... so basically we agree. (I think evolution is a valid theory, BTW)

vincentML -> RE: agnostic or atheist? (5/13/2010 9:54:46 AM)
quote: As someone who does not believe that evolution is incongruous with an omnipotent creator I have to say that evolution is a theory. It is a good theory. It has much substantiation, but there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from. There is plenty enough room on this message board to address what he said, because we truly do not know the mechanisms that caused life. If it were as scientists suggest, a change reaction of amino acids, well we have never recreated it in the lab, and that to me is telling, if that was how it happened then science should be able to recreate life from amino acids and they can't I believe you might productively examine the science of Abiogenesis to seek answers to your spark of life question. The formation of life from amino acids, or more properly DNA has taken at least 3 Billion years. Your assertion that scientists should be able to replicate the process in the lab is a wee bit of a stretch imo. Actually, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did find amino acids were formed when in 1953 they passed a 50,000 volt spark through a mixture of gases they hypothesized could represent the earth's early environment. They were piggybacking on the work of a Russian scientist Alexander Oparin from 1924. Naturally, as in all scientific work, controversy abounds. Nevertheless the task was done and research continues. Here is a link if you are interested.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875