I believe in God, but CAN NOT believe in organized religion.

[JakeStarkey]

Zaangawela, do you integrate science and religion?

 

[zaangalewa]

Zaangawela, do you integrate science and religion?

Sure. Truth is always true - completely independent who speaks the truth - or something what's true - or speaks about a way how perhaps to be able to find something what's true. But not everything what someone speaks in the name of religion or science is true. It's important for everyone to find a way someone is able to go on ones own - and even in this case ways are sometimes wrong. That's not a big problem, as long as someone returns. Also a whitewater canoest will find a way. All rivers will find each other in the ocean of the endless wisdom and knowledge of god. A problem are this people who give intentionally wrong waymarks within the dessert of lack of spirituality to the next waterhole. And the next waterhole is sometimes not the own waterhole.

 

[PK1]

he lived only for Christmas in the last years of his wonderful life - fully in the grace of god. Unfortunatelly one day his cancer killed him ...

---
You provided a good example for why science & religion are completely separate world views.
Agnostics are not delusional, and are emotionally secure.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

he lived only for Christmas in the last years of his wonderful life - fully in the grace of god. Unfortunatelly one day his cancer killed him ...

---
You provided a good example for why science & religion are completely separate world views.
Agnostics are not delusional, and are emotionally secure.
.

You misunderstand, which is OK.

 

[zaangalewa]

he lived only for Christmas in the last years of his wonderful life - fully in the grace of god. Unfortunatelly one day his cancer killed him ...

---
You provided a good example for why science & religion are completely separate world views.
Agnostics are not delusional, and are emotionally secure.
.

I am an Agnostics. So thank you for your "praise" - but emotional stability has not a lot to do with ideas about epistemology. Agnosticism says for example that Atheism is just simple a belief. But Agnosticism itselve is not able to be a belief on reasons of philosophy and/or logic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Agnosticism is a belief system as well, believing that the evidence for or against deity does not exist.

 

[zaangalewa]

Agnosticism is a belief system as well, believing that the evidence for or against deity does not exist.

Agnosticism is a philosophy (="What are we able to think?") ... and as a philosophy it is a part of the christian religion(= "rebound in god"). We believe in god, what means both: As well "We don't know god" but also "We trust in god". The not answerable question "Was God existing when he created existance?" might show this to you very clear. Paulus said for example "We walk in faith, not by sight".

Today lots of people seem to think "agnosticism"="atheism" ... What to say about? ... To think so is stupid - even if Nobel price winners think so. Agnosticism shows that as well "Atheism" and "Theism" are a belief - not knowledge. So we could think for exampole that god is existing and not existing the same time. And indeed: god is able to exist and not to exist the same time. He's god! He's allmighty - a little more mighty than only endless mighty. But ... and this is a very very big "but" ... we are not able to think so !!! In case we think ["god is" and "god is not"] is a true premise -although within this premsie is a contradiction- always everything is true what follows such a premise. So this means very concrete: Agnosticism is not able to be a belief! We have to make a decisions first, if we like to think clear without inner contradiction. Philosophy forces us to do this decision - not god - okay: maybe god forces us via philosophy to do so. Whatever: Christians never had a problem with agnosticism, because we separate automatically belief and knowledge - visions and deeds - prophecies and reality. And maybe in any future we will find a new form of logic - for example the logic of the colors of light, where we will be able to think in "red", "green" and "blue" and not only any longer in "true" and "false" or in "0" and "1" like machines. We are by the way in a better position than machines, because machines are not able to live with paradoxes. We are able to live with. As long as someone loves god and his people - who cares? Not everyone has to be a philosopher - not everyone has to be a baker ... God is for everyone who lives and loves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Agnosticism = a belief system unable either to prove or not the existence of God.

 

[zaangalewa]

Agnosticism = a belief system unable either to prove or not the existence of God.

You did not understand what I say. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. It's a philosophy. The philosophy Agnosticism shows that Atheists and Theists don't know what they are speaking about - and it looks like never anyone will know (except Goedel maybe). What I call "to know" you are subsumizing under the word "prove" - what's only a very small aspect of the philosophy "empirism".

A big mistake in this context is for example to think there's a continuum between Atheism and Theism and an Agnostics is a point somewhere in this universe between belief and not-belief. No: It's just simple not possible to believe in Atheism and Theism the same time. There's not a continuum. There's a decision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You do not understand the words. A philosophy, as well as process, is also a belief. If your philosophy tells you that you cannot determine whether God exists or not, then you believe it.

 

[zaangalewa]

You do not understand the words. A philosophy, as well as process, is also a belief.

Not at all. Maybe the english language is using the word philosophy in a strange context. Philosophy is the mother of all sciences. Background: If a physical law is not compatible with a law in chemistry then somehting is wrong. There is only one truth.

If your philosophy tells you

"My" philosophy tells me nothing, philosophy tells me something - but I guess I understand how you use the word "philosophy". You use it like the german word "Einstellung" = "mindset". It's easy to change a mindestet - it's nearly impossible to change a philosophy except on reasons of logic.

that you cannot determine whether God exists or not, then you believe it.

Agnosticism is not a belief and determines nothing. It says not really something about god. It says something about "What are we able to know?" and "What do we have to believe?" and finds out, that it is impossible to say Atheism is knowledge and/or the only correct form of belief. Same with theism. For me to be an agnostics changes nothing in my religion - except that I don't try to convince atheists to believe in god. It's senseless to try to do so.

And it's for me personally by the way completly unimportant wether someone wins or loses whatever this could be in a senseless war of words.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You do not get your own definitions and terms.

 

[Mudda]

 

[zaangalewa]

You do not get your own definitions and terms.

Strange. ... Whatever ...

 

[zaangalewa]

"All generalizations are false - including this one."
Mark Twain.

 

[Mudda]

"All generalizations are false - including this one."
Mark Twain.

He's not generalizing, he's stating a fact about only 2 people. Geez, you nazis are fucking stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You do not get your own definitions and terms.

Strange. ... Whatever ..]

Yes, you are strange.

 

[PK1]

he lived only for Christmas in the last years of his wonderful life - fully in the grace of god. Unfortunatelly one day his cancer killed him ...

You provided a good example for why science & religion are completely separate world views.
Agnostics are not delusional, and are emotionally secure.

I am an Agnostics. So thank you for your "praise" - but emotional stability has not a lot to do with ideas about epistemology. Agnosticism says for example that Atheism is just simple a belief. But Agnosticism itselve is not able to be a belief on reasons of philosophy and/or logic.

I see agnosticism as more of a method than belief. Similar to scientific method.
Agnostics say "i don't know unless there's a reason i should know", like having experience or trustworthy knowledge/evidence about something.

The famous agnostic said it this way:
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know."
(Robert Ingersoll)
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then you believe you don't know.

 

[PK1]

Then you believe you don't know.

---
Belief is like a hunch beyond really knowing.
Can't believe in inane God stories, like in Bible's OT or NT or Quran, etc. They seem too obvious made by ignorant people of the times.
On the other hand, TOE makes a lot of sense. No better explanation of human phylogenetic origins.
.