Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Willfor]

Is there some sort of detailed list that explains how fossils couldn't have come from the Flood?  That's something that bugs me to this day, how so many people say it's pretty obvious that the Flood didn't create those fossils, but never give the reasons why it couldn't...   The History Channel did this often >_o

Looking at this short conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Mackay(a young Earth creationist), one can come to a conclusion that it would be imperative to assume that things worked differently in the past than they do now, for all the data regarding geological strata and radioactive dating to conform with the young Earth belief.

His question was already answered dude. His post was a massive "my question has just been greatly answered" post.

[Farmerbob]

Ugh. You're insisting that your definitions are the only acceptable ones and that any ideas allowed for by alternate terminology but not by yours must not exist (there's a PM conversation here, btw, so there's some context is missing). Standing up for your beliefs is admirable. Standing up for what you demand other people believe is not, and this is what you are doing when you insist that all atheists believe that there are no deities.

Let me be clear. You do not get to bring up an old argument, tell people who identify as atheists what they believe, call them loonies for it, argue that certain beliefs (which I happen to hold, by the way) are a sham aimed at misleading agnostics into siding with your stereotype of atheists, insist you're above the bickering, and then claim that your beliefs are being trod on and that your taking offense is why the conversation needs to change.

That's my final word. Drop it. You're not reported for this, nor am I locking the thread, because you didn't actually argue about the definitions directly and I'm trying to be understanding. But consider this avenue off-limits, as well.

Edit: In fact, when I say it's my final word, it extends beyond this thread. I won't continue to indulge this, even over PM. At least not today. Your PMs have failed to contain anything we didn't go over the last time this came up, and I'm tired of this. Maybe I'll read and reply later, but I promise nothing. My patience is exhausted.

Blue is not yellow.  No matter how many times you try to insist blue is yellow, I will defy you.  The same with trying to say Agnostics are Atheists.

[CoughDrop]

Blue is not yellow.  No matter how many times you try to insist blue is yellow, I will defy you.  The same with trying to say Agnostics are Atheists.

That's... not how it works. I can have butter, and I can have toast. I can then butter my toast to make it buttered toast.

Could you perhaps explain why you think Agnosticism and Atheism are so fundamentally different that they cannot be combined at all?

EDIT: Wait, who said agnostics had to be atheists, anyway?

[Farmerbob]

Blue is not yellow.  No matter how many times you try to insist blue is yellow, I will defy you.  The same with trying to say Agnostics are Atheists.

That's... not how it works. I can have butter, and I can have toast. I can then butter my toast to make it buttered toast.

Could you perhaps explain why you think Agnosticism and Atheism are so fundamentally different that they cannot be combined at all?

Atheist people believe without proof that there are no deities.

Religious people believe without proof in a deity or supernatural something or other

Agnostics refuse to believe either way until someone provides proof.

Irreligious people don't even know what religion is and have no understanding of what it means to believe in a deity or supernatural something or other.  (children, brain damaged, aliens, whatever)

Each of these classifications have their own subsets.  None of these four major groups shares any overlap when discussing belief.  I tend to ignore the irreligious in arguments, because anyone capable of arguing about religion, is incapable of being irreligious.

*EDIT*
(Depending on what dictionary definitions you use, and how loosely you interpret them, you can make a case for combining Agnostics and Irreligious together, I suppose, but that's not the argument here.  Agnostic vs Atheist is)

[CoughDrop]

So you've made a false dichotomy wherein anyone who is does not define them self as agnostic is instantly gnostic.

...I think I'm done here - both for the sake of my sanity and for keeping this discussion from continuing any further.

EDIT: changes struck out and underlined.

[Farmerbob]

So you've made a false dichotomy wherein anyone who is not agnostic is instantly gnostic.

...I think I'm done here - both for the sake of my sanity and for keeping this discussion from continuing any further.

Agnostic has absolutely no relation to the term gnostic, believe it or not

Definition of GNOSTICISM

 : the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis

[Willfor]

gnos·tic

adjective /ˈnästik/ 

   1. Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge

   2. Of or relating to Gnosticism

[DrPoo]

Hello, a friendly Christain here.

Recently i have been angered by people explicitly stating that god does not exist, i think that is straightforwardly stupid, no offense.
Nothing can really be proven, some people go with the scientific approach to everything and only beleive in what they think and see, i think that is ok.
Most religious people do not refuse science, some of us just dont beleive in what Darwin said a few hundreds of years ago. Eh i beleive in him.
Some atheist stereotype religious people as science refusing morons who run around trying to make everyone like them. Eh, i dont like that, as much as i dont like the usual atheist stereotype comparing god to santa. Christianity is not about following the bible as a law or reality, but more as guidelines and source of inspiration, since most of it is old and unclear.

And the most stupid thing i have heard from both Atheists and Theists is that they beleive Science and Religion contradicts each other, they do not do enough research and jugde things to be stupid ghost stories and stupid trends. This is what i call trend atheists and trendtheists. Because they only follow a trend, blindly.

I want to say so much right now but it gets stuck in my head.

I challenge atheists dedicated to science, they beleive in a singularity unfolding and creating the universe and the laws of physics, is this any more worse than some bored guy making shite out of clay and breathing bad breath through his nose wich stinks so much that the clay figures come to life? You beleive in invisible forces attracting matter, is little goblins pulling them with a sled buildt entirely out of fishsticks and candy any better? Hey i dont know, but such a singularity, why the hell would it fart out an entire universe for no raisins? Hell id give it a grape instead, no. I think it sounds quite fitting that some kind of god provoked the big bang, and can anybody deny that god thought of physics?

And this is usually what i do to convince people not to "know" god does not exist, and that Science and Religion does to contradict each other, and it usually works:

Put yourself in the seat, shoes, whatever that dude/gal sits in/wears. You are making a world, wouldnt you think of tying some kind of logic together to make fun stuff happen? I mean, even flatulent toasters make some kind of sense. Sense is fun, so why not make sense of everything? Hell i even understand why he made us, so he could laugh at us completely misconcepting everything and failing all the time and ultimately fucking everything up. I think the universe is here, only for the laughs. And i try to make granddaddy failprogrammer a little bit proud by attempting to not be a fail piece of ruthless creativity, and that is why i am christain.

[Farmerbob]

gnos·tic

adjective /ˈnästik/ 

   1. Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge

   2. Of or relating to Gnosticism

Where did that definition come from, doesn't match any that I can find in reliable places.

*Edit* found it.  Oxford pocket dictionary.  Now I need to clarify.  Never seen that usage before.


Henry Huxley:
"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

So yes, anyone who holds a position that cannot be demonstrated or proved is not Agnostic.  You can use the term outside of religion, but it's uncommon.

[Willfor]

gnos·tic

adjective /ˈnästik/ 

   1. Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge

   2. Of or relating to Gnosticism

Where did that definition come from, doesn't match any that I can find in reliable places.

That came from a google search of "define: gnostic", but I knew the meaning he was using from my own experience with it. It's a separate term than gnosticism, and has been since it was originally a Greek word for knowledge. The fact that it is a rather archaic way to say it doesn't mean that CoughDrop was using it wrong. The word has been conflated with Gnosticism, but it exists as its own word.

[Il Palazzo]

I challenge atheists dedicated to science, they beleive in a singularity unfolding and creating the universe and the laws of physics, is this any more worse than some bored guy making shite out of clay and breathing bad breath through his nose wich stinks so much that the clay figures come to life? You beleive in invisible forces attracting matter, is little goblins pulling them with a sled buildt entirely out of fishsticks and candy any better? Hey i dont know, but such a singularity, why the hell would it fart out an entire universe for no raisins? Hell id give it a grape instead, no. I think it sounds quite fitting that some kind of god provoked the big bang, and can anybody deny that god thought of physics?

I'll bite, because last time it was discussed was probably at least half a year ago, and nobody should be required to browse through hundreds of pages of arguments in all the "Atheism" threads there were, just to find the relevant discussion. So stay your hand if you were to scream bloody murder for having to watch the same old story retold again and again.

The difference in the religious and scientific views on the matter that you've mentioned, i.e.the begining of the universe, is that one can find certain clues in the world that seem to be pointing towards the Big Bang event(which is what you're referring to I think) and none supporting the hardline creationism - i.e. literally creation ex nihilo some few thousand years ago. As for the more moderate approach to creationism that you mention, i.e. some godly force creating, essentially, the Big Bang, it is less honest, and certainly less humble answer to the question of creation - where scientists readilly admit: "we think this is how it was back then, and we haven't got a clue what was before that", theists are somehow sure that they do know exactly where did everything come from - a stance most arrogant in my opininon.

[DrPoo]

I challenge atheists dedicated to science, they beleive in a singularity unfolding and creating the universe and the laws of physics, is this any more worse than some bored guy making shite out of clay and breathing bad breath through his nose wich stinks so much that the clay figures come to life? You beleive in invisible forces attracting matter, is little goblins pulling them with a sled buildt entirely out of fishsticks and candy any better? Hey i dont know, but such a singularity, why the hell would it fart out an entire universe for no raisins? Hell id give it a grape instead, no. I think it sounds quite fitting that some kind of god provoked the big bang, and can anybody deny that god thought of physics?

I'll bite, because last time it was discussed was probably at least half a year ago, and nobody should be required to browse through hundreds of pages of arguments in all the "Atheism" threads there were, just to find the relevant discussion. So stay your hand if you were to scream bloody murder for having to watch the same old story retold again and again.

The difference in the religious and scientific views on the matter that you've mentioned, i.e.the begining of the universe, is that one can find certain clues in the world that seem to be pointing towards the Big Bang event(which is what you're referring to I think) and none supporting the hardline creationism - i.e. literally creation ex nihilo some few thousand years ago. As for the more moderate approach to creationism that you mention, i.e. some godly force creating, essentially, the Big Bang, it is less honest, and certainly less humble answer to the question of creation - where scientists readilly admit: "we think this is how it was back then, and we haven't got a clue what was before that", theists are somehow sure that they do know exactly where did everything come from - a stance most arrogant in my opininon.

In all respect, i stated that i dislike that kind of thing about "knowing" what i am trying to say is that nothing can be proved and therefore redicolous to discuss. Personal freedom allows us to beleive in green goblins pulling suns and shit or not if we want to..

[Il Palazzo]

I am quite certain that some things are provable to the extent of being relatable to the obsarvations we can make about the world. There is great value in being able to admit what you don't know, or that what you know might turn out to be imprecise in the future. But I don't see equal value in insisting that you don't know even if there is some evidence staring you in the face, just for the sake of allowing yourself to equalize the disliked, if more likely answer with the less likely one, albeit preferred, on the grounds of both of them being supposedly beyond the realm of scrutiny.

This brings me back to the question you had asked previously, about the compatibility/incompatibility of science and religion - judging by your personal views on the matter we're just discussing, it would appear that your belief in a creator leads you to discrediting the science related to the realm of creation. You would be very unlikely to find yourself engaged in a scientific effort to explain the origins of the universe, as you appear to already know how it happened, or at least(and forgive me that I'm not sure which it is) that it is impossible, or meaningless to know that. Thus the answers provided by your belief system prevents you from seeking answers in a scientific fashion.

[DrPoo]

I am quite certain that some things are provable to the extent of being relatable to the obsarvations we can make about the world. There is great value in being able to admit what you don't know, or that what you know might turn out to be imprecise in the future. But I don't see equal value in insisting that you don't know even if there is some evidence staring you in the face, just for the sake of allowing yourself to equalize the disliked, if more likely answer with the less likely one, albeit preferred, on the grounds of both of them being supposedly beyond the realm of scrutiny.

This brings me back to the question you had asked previously, about the compatibility/incompatibility of science and religion - judging by your personal views on the matter we're just discussing, it would appear that your belief in a creator leads you to discrediting the science related to the realm of creation. You would be very unlikely to find yourself engaged in a scientific effort to explain the origins of the universe, as you appear to already know how it happened, or at least(and forgive me that I'm not sure which it is) that it is impossible, or meaningless to know that. Thus the answers provided by your belief system prevents you from seeking answers in a scientific fashion.

Im not a jew.

Eh, the difference between jews and christains is that we are free to ignore parts of the religion and bible, for example we are allowed to paint god, while jews arent.
Science and Religion are two completely different matters of one thing, philosophy, even logic is a philosophy.

I have been interested in science since i was a kid, and i use it regularily each day to jugde. But hell i pray to god when i do bad shit, and that is how i am.
I refuse neither the existence of god/god being existence itself, nor that there is some kind of "truth" in science. But saying this and that is false and only this is true is stupid, atleast that is what i think.
I was raised to not question god, i do at times but that is usually followed by a depression, i doubt science, at times, for the trend among scientists to jump at conclusions. But they are two completely different subjects, atleast to me.

I am just as skeptic as you are, i have just taken the freedom to beleive in a caring and loving god. And then comes the "but my life is shit and my ex-girlfriend got raped while in a psycho ward", and i answer with the question, Toady didnt add a "win game" button, did he? That would be pointless. I beleive God didnt give us cheats because he wanted us to appreciate it. life.

I respect your existence, just as much as i respect the existence of a sister or a god. Call me mad and stupid for what i beleive in, but that is not going to change my opinions. I am convinced but i do not know.

Edit2: Reread your reply, and i just say thanks for that kind of respect you gave to my personal beleifs.

[Farmerbob]

So you've made a false dichotomy wherein anyone who is does not define them self as agnostic is instantly gnostic.

...I think I'm done here - both for the sake of my sanity and for keeping this discussion from continuing any further.

EDIT: changes struck out and underlined.

Re-responding.

If you have all of the beliefs of an Agnostic person and don't even know it because you've been told wrongly that you are Atheist, then you are still an Agnostic.  What you call yourself isn't necessarily what you are.  Even if you know no better.  I know a lot of people who have been unfortunate enough to have been confused in that way.  If he's being honest in his conversations with me, the OP is one of them, but doesn't realize it yet.

As a pseudo-similar scenario, I also know a few people who were adopted, and didn't know it until they were adults.  That doesn't change who their biological parents are.  What you are isn't defined by your perception of reality, it's defined by actual reality.