29 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou mean when you attempted to show something? lol. You only 'showed' that it wasn't consistent with some ill-conceived notions that you have.
It is bloody stupid when your own definition isn't internally consistent, as I showed you all those pages ago....
The truly sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that you're some kind of authority on this subject when you appear to understand so little. College kid or not far removed, right? As you go through life you'll come to understand how little you know right now about anything.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNo, Research Scientist would be closer.
You mean when you attempted to show something? lol. You only 'showed' that it wasn't consistent with some ill-conceived notions that you have.
The truly sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that you're some kind of authority on this subject when you appear to understand so little. College kid or not far removed, right? As you go through life you'll come to understand how little you know right now about anything.
I fully understand the difference between empirical evidence (none for God) and belief (all there can ever be). Thus a theist or atheist can never be so based on positive evidence for God, (but positive evidence against God is a different story) since there isn't any.
Theists always come with the "the universe is evidence" rubbish, but that doesn't stand up, or we'd all be theists, heck, I'd probably be at the forefront. So you can only ever BELIEVE in God, evidence does not factor into it. At the end of the day, we don't really know how the universe got here, which could "imply" any number of imaginary creations of your choice.
However, the bible clearly states the properties of God. These are testable. For example, current Christian doctorine states God to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Thus, there should be no suffering in the world, such a being could not allow it and, having the power to do so, would. This is strike one, (of many) against God.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe problem is your Agnostic category includes to very different groups.
The current dictionary meanings seem to break it down like this:
Theist - Those who affirm the existence of God.
Atheist - Those who deny the existence of God.
Agnostic - Those who neither affirm nor deny the existence of God.
1. Those who have thought about it and specifically state that they either don't know whether God exists or even believe that they cannot know.
2. Those that have never heard of the God concept or have not even thought about it. Eg babies.
A number of people hear feel that 2. fits better when grouped with the Atheists.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou know, you missed a "n" in your name....
You mean when you attempted to show something? lol. You only 'showed' that it wasn't consistent with some ill-conceived notions that you have.
The truly sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that you're some kind of authority on this subject when you appear to understand so little. College kid or not far removed, right? As you go through life you'll come to understand how little you know right now about anything.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut a Research Scientist that isn't far removed from university. Sorry, but it shows.
No, Research Scientist would be closer.
I fully understand the difference between empirical evidence (none for God) and belief (all there can ever be). Thus a theist or atheist can never be so based on positive evidence for God, (but positive evidence against God is a different story) since there isn't any.
Theists always come with the "the unive ...[text shortened]... w it and, having the power to do so, would. This is strike one, (of many) against God.
Why in your mind is current Chrisian doctorine the final authority on the properties of God?
29 Jun 07
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't understand why this is a 'problem', but it seems that an Atheist category that includes "2" might suffer from a similar problem.
The problem is your Agnostic category includes to very different groups.
1. Those who have thought about it and specifically state that they either don't know whether God exists or even believe that they cannot know.
2. Those that have never heard of the God concept or have not even thought about it. Eg babies.
A number of people hear feel that 2. fits better when grouped with the Atheists.
If a number of people here feel that "2" fits better when grouped with Athiests, that's fine. But it doesn't make using the currently accepted dictionary definitions "wrong".
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBut which dictionary? You are pretending that there is such a thing as a universal dictionary.
If a number of people here feel that "2" fits better when grouped with Athiests, that's fine. But it doesn't make using the currently accepted dictionary definitions "wrong".
From Merriam Webster:
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something .
clearly my "2" is not included in this definition of agnostic.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadSure, there may be differences between dictionaries, but the dictionaries that I've checked thus far seem to be reasonably consistent in theme.
But which dictionary? You are pretending that there is such a thing as a universal dictionary.
From Merriam Webster:
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling t ...[text shortened]... an opinion about something .
clearly my "2" is not included in this definition of agnostic.
I'm not so sure that your "2" is not included in the second part of the first definition.
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne1) Yes, a good education always shows. But hey, feel free to wallow in your ignorance.
But a Research Scientist that isn't far removed from university. Sorry, but it shows.
Why in your mind is current Chrisian doctorine the final authority on the properties of God?
2) What else is there? Would you prefer I use Christian doctorine from 1000 years in the future.
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by scottishinnz1) What shows is that you've yet to come to the realization of how limited and limiting your academic training is.
1) Yes, a good education always shows. But hey, feel free to wallow in your ignorance.
2) What else is there? Would you prefer I use Christian doctorine from 1000 years in the future.
2) God is what it is, if it is. Current Christian doctorine doesn't necessarily reflect an accurate picture of God.
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOh, and you think you're so smart, right? Well, I'm not going to roll around in the mud like a pig with you.
1) What shows is that you've yet to come to the realization of how limited and limiting your academic training is.
2) God is what it is, if it is. Current Christian doctorine doesn't necessarily reflect an accurate picture of God.
They say you should never debate a fool, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. You've yet to show any sort of coherent thinking, insulting people who disagree with you doesn't count.
01 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow quaint.
Oh, and you think you're so smart, right? Well, I'm not going to roll around in the mud like a pig with you.
They say you should never debate a fool, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. You've yet to show any sort of coherent thinking, insulting people who disagree with you doesn't count.
So how would you characterize someone who begins a refutation of God with the premise that current Christian doctorine is the final authority on the properties of God?
I'm sure your academic training has taught you much. However, you've yet to acquire the wisdom required to formulate a sound understanding. Perhaps that's what you find so disconcerting.
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou bloody hypocrite. You're quite happy to attack people challenging dictionary definitions, but you have no problem challenging the accepted Christian definition of God?
2) God is what it is, if it is. Current Christian doctorine doesn't necessarily reflect an accurate picture of God.