If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[Slyhunter]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Agnosticism neither denies nor acknowledges God

If you are agnostic you play it safe, or so one thinks

Believing that nothing + nothing = creation, is fantasy

Believing that a whole bunch of nothing
created a whole bunch of different life forms.....
life forms and living organisms all dependent on each other

That, somehow, from nothingness
an intelligent life form could manifest
with self sustaining precision, is absurd

You can not see the wind but you can feel it
and see the leaves, grass, flags and water moved by it

No faith is faith in itself

You can't prove what was first created.

What difference does that make?

I don’t have to prove people didn’t evolve from apes
to know we didn’t

What you claiming to be all knowing or all seeing now?
BTW the theory isn't that we evolved from Apes but that we shared the same ancestors as Apes.

 

[Slyhunter]

Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.

Too much "faith-based" science like evolution these days. I studied both evolution and believed in that for several years until I compared it with creation science. The real science is creation science and is based on the scientific method.

Oh yeah. Agnostics are people who need a clue. I just lump them together with atheists.

Agnostics are realists. They don't lie to themselves and think they know everything.

 

[keepitreal]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Agnosticism neither denies nor acknowledges God

If you are agnostic you play it safe, or so one thinks

Believing that nothing + nothing = creation, is fantasy

Believing that a whole bunch of nothing
created a whole bunch of different life forms.....
life forms and living organisms all dependent on each other

That, somehow, from nothingness
an intelligent life form could manifest
with self sustaining precision, is absurd

You can not see the wind but you can feel it
and see the leaves, grass, flags and water moved by it

No faith is faith in itself

You can't prove what was first created.

What difference does that make?

I don’t have to prove people didn’t evolve from apes
to know we didn’t

What you claiming to be all knowing or all seeing now?
BTW the theory isn't that we evolved from Apes but that we shared the same ancestors as Apes.

Nope, if that were the case I’d win the powerball

BTW...same difference

 

[james bond]

Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.

Too much "faith-based" science like evolution these days. I studied both evolution and believed in that for several years until I compared it with creation science. The real science is creation science and is based on the scientific method.

Oh yeah. Agnostics are people who need a clue. I just lump them together with atheists.

Agnostics are realists. They don't lie to themselves and think they know everything.

I read about evolution on Understanding Evolution, and believed in it for several years. From 2007 to 2011, science articles and other articles came out against evolution. I read those and also read about creation science in ICR and AIG. What also bugged me were news articles telling us how old the Earth was or how old the universe was. Why did they have to keep saying this when it was fact?

The creation scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon provided the better scientific arguments based on the scientific method. Creation science is what was believed before the 1850s. Since then, it's been the "faith-based" science of evolution. Practically, all of it is based on circumstantial evidence. That isn't real science using the scientific method. These secular scientists and atheist scientists also systematically eliminated their competition from peer reviews. That isn't the way I learned science. Science has been always about arguments and presenting the best scientific argument. There is enough scientific arguments from both sides that any rational person can take a position.

Agnostics aren't realists because they do not know which side is presenting the best scientific argument nor the best theory. It's my opinion that they need a clue. I usually just lump them in with the atheists because secular science is what they have been taught. If there is an agnostic who is a realist, then they would be willing to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions and arguments. They would have read about creation science. Instead, it's usually, "I don't know."

 

[Frankenvoter]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

If I am honest, I need to tell you about a vision I had from Jesus. That's if you want to hear about it and if you think those things are possible, I was walking around on the dark side of life and missing no opportunity to give God the finger, and he humbled me good (somewhere around the 10,000th time I did it, he has (almost) infinite patience).

I tell people about it at sites like this and generally they don't seem to be swayed if they are already of the mind that they're correct, people like me need analyzed and straightjacketed.

So I don't want to waste the type but I will tell you that people who are agnostic, if they are honest about it, feel that they are the only gods that need worshipped around here thank you very much because THEY got that degree, THEY got that house, THEY earned everything that THEY have, and really dont have anyone to thank but themselves, when they get right down to it.

That's where I was at BTW, and alot of people like to compartmentalize God, "OK, I've put everything in order, I got the place, I got the babe, I got the stuff, NOW I'm gonna go on a search for God, and see if I can find one I can find one I agree with, I."

It was a dark day, one of the darkest of my life. It was the middle of winter it was cold as fuck and I was living in my car, I, was in a car that wouldn't start in the middle of howling cold winter wind feeling quite desperate but I've heard a statement which is true that "the darker it is, the easier it is to see the light".

 

[james bond]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

If I am honest, I need to tell you about a vision I had from Jesus. That's if you want to hear about it and if you think those things are possible, I was walking around on the dark side of life and missing no opportunity to give God the finger, and he humbled me good (somewhere around the 10,000th time I did it, he has (almost) infinite patience).

I tell people about it at sites like this and generally they don't seem to be swayed if they are already of the mind that they're correct, people like me need analyzed and straightjacketed.

So I don't want to waste the type but I will tell you that people who are agnostic, if they are honest about it, feel that they are the only gods that need worshipped around here thank you very much because THEY got that degree, THEY got that house, THEY earned everything that THEY have, and really dont have anyone to thank but themselves, when they get right down to it.

That's where I was at BTW, and alot of people like to compartmentalize God, "OK, I've put everything in order, I got the place, I got the babe, I got the stuff, NOW I'm gonna go on a search for God, and see if I can find one I can find one I agree with, I."

It was a dark day, one of the darkest of my life. It was the middle of winter it was cold as fuck and I was living in my car, I, was in a car that wouldn't start in the middle of howling cold winter wind feeling quite desperate but I've heard a statement which is true that "the darker it is, the easier it is to see the light".

Yours is a very, very, very uplifting story.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

yep.

I don't pretend to know something I don't actually know.

 

[Slyhunter]

Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.

Too much "faith-based" science like evolution these days. I studied both evolution and believed in that for several years until I compared it with creation science. The real science is creation science and is based on the scientific method.

Oh yeah. Agnostics are people who need a clue. I just lump them together with atheists.

Agnostics are realists. They don't lie to themselves and think they know everything.

I read about evolution on Understanding Evolution, and believed in it for several years. From 2007 to 2011, science articles and other articles came out against evolution. I read those and also read about creation science in ICR and AIG. What also bugged me were news articles telling us how old the Earth was or how old the universe was. Why did they have to keep saying this when it was fact?

The creation scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon provided the better scientific arguments based on the scientific method. Creation science is what was believed before the 1850s. Since then, it's been the "faith-based" science of evolution. Practically, all of it is based on circumstantial evidence. That isn't real science using the scientific method. These secular scientists and atheist scientists also systematically eliminated their competition from peer reviews. That isn't the way I learned science. Science has been always about arguments and presenting the best scientific argument. There is enough scientific arguments from both sides that any rational person can take a position.

Agnostics aren't realists because they do not know which side is presenting the best scientific argument nor the best theory. It's my opinion that they need a clue. I usually just lump them in with the atheists because secular science is what they have been taught. If there is an agnostic who is a realist, then they would be willing to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions and arguments. They would have read about creation science. Instead, it's usually, "I don't know."

Until somebody comes back from the dead and tells us the deal, nobody can claim they know what happens after death. Nobody knows how the universe was created. One theory is the Universe is part of a Multi-verse and time has no beginning or end, it just is and it eats it's own tail.

 

[james bond]

Until somebody comes back from the dead and tells us the deal, nobody can claim they know what happens after death. Nobody knows how the universe was created. One theory is the Universe is part of a Multi-verse and time has no beginning or end, it just is and it eats it's own tail.

We have NDE, i.e. people who were deemed clinically dead and came back to life to explain what happened. We also haved people from creation and evolution sides studying neurology. Also, the Book of Genesis and the link I gave you explain how the universe started (evolutionary thinking and history). There is no evidence for a multi-verse. An eternal universe is pseudoscience. See Steady State Theory. I don't have time nor wish to sit down with you to understand what most people basically know and have been taught. For example, I went to Stephen Hawking to see how evolutionists explained how the universe started -- The Origin of the Universe.

 

[ding]

Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.

Too much "faith-based" science like evolution these days. I studied both evolution and believed in that for several years until I compared it with creation science. The real science is creation science and is based on the scientific method.

Oh yeah. Agnostics are people who need a clue. I just lump them together with atheists.

Agnostics are realists. They don't lie to themselves and think they know everything.

Everyone lies to themselves. The only difference is the degree.

 

[ding]

I would say “Belief without evidence” is “naive faith”. Belief in corroborated science is “mature faith or trust”. Trust & faith are somewhat interchangeable. I used “faith” because religious people prefer that word. A definition of “faith”: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Fine, as long as you draw a stark distinction between the two ideas, which are actually nothing alike.

They are absolutely alike and connected. They are alike because both require good reason. Trust is a firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something. Faith is complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

They are nothing alike. Drawing conclusions from evidence is the opposote of starting from a point of adopting a belief without evidence. This is why it is pointless talking to you...you will literally say anything, no matter how obviously retarded it is.

Do you understand the concept of substitution. If we take the definition of trust and insert it into the definition of faith to replace the word trust this is what you get:

Trust is a firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

Faith is complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Therefore, Faith is a firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength or confidence in someone or something.

They are so much alike that you can insert one definition into the other and it doesn't change the meaning of the definition it was inserted into. That's how much alike they are.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you are now deciding you know what people believe more than they do?

Atheists are people who do not believe in any god. For you to claim that they are actually agnostic is the height of arrogance.

A common definition of ATHIEST is:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

A “strong athiest” disbelieves there is any god, while a “weak athiest” simply has no belief in a god (hence a-theist).
An agnostic (don’t know!) is also a weak athiest.

That is what I said. Claiming that they are agnostic is somewhat arrogant, wouldn't you say?

You are confusing arrogance with honesty about ignorance.
To be dishonest and pretend you know something beyond your experiences or rational perceptions of knowledge is arrogant.

No, I am claiming that it is arrogant to claim to know what someone believes more than they do. If someone does not believe in any god, they are, by definition, and atheist. To claim that they are an agnostic is arrogant and insulting.

I am not claiming to know what others believe!-
I am simply saying that if you/others are not honest about your ignorance and claim knowledge of a god, then YOU claimants are arrogant ... OR put up your evidence.

An ignostic (don’t know) is also a weak atheist (no belief). If you admit ignorance, then you have no belief ... if you are honest and logical.

I am very honest. I do not believe in any deity or god. That, by definition, is an atheist.

 

[Taz]

To see proves god is real.

What about blind people, did god fuck them up on purpose?

You mean like homosexuals?

Even if being gay was a handicap, so why did god make them?

 

[Wyatt earp]

To see proves god is real.

What about blind people, did god fuck them up on purpose?

You mean like homosexuals?

Even if being gay was a handicap, so why did god make them?

One does not make a homo, it is a choice.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

A common definition of ATHIEST is:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

A “strong athiest” disbelieves there is any god, while a “weak athiest” simply has no belief in a god (hence a-theist).
An agnostic (don’t know!) is also a weak athiest.

That is what I said. Claiming that they are agnostic is somewhat arrogant, wouldn't you say?

You are confusing arrogance with honesty about ignorance.
To be dishonest and pretend you know something beyond your experiences or rational perceptions of knowledge is arrogant.

No, I am claiming that it is arrogant to claim to know what someone believes more than they do. If someone does not believe in any god, they are, by definition, and atheist. To claim that they are an agnostic is arrogant and insulting.

I am not claiming to know what others believe!-
I am simply saying that if you/others are not honest about your ignorance and claim knowledge of a god, then YOU claimants are arrogant ... OR put up your evidence.

An ignostic (don’t know) is also a weak atheist (no belief). If you admit ignorance, then you have no belief ... if you are honest and logical.

I am very honest. I do not believe in any deity or god. That, by definition, is an atheist.

You will in due time like when Alabama is down by 7 to Clemson





.

 

[Taz]

To see proves god is real.

What about blind people, did god fuck them up on purpose?

You mean like homosexuals?

Even if being gay was a handicap, so why did god make them?

One does not make a homo, it is a choice.

.

Ummm... no. I have some gay friends and I'll tell you for sure, it's not a choice, they were born like that. Conversion therapies don't work for that reason.

 

[ding]

To see proves god is real.

What about blind people, did god fuck them up on purpose?

You mean like homosexuals?

Even if being gay was a handicap, so why did god make them?

If?

 

[ding]

To see proves god is real.

What about blind people, did god fuck them up on purpose?

You mean like homosexuals?

Even if being gay was a handicap, so why did god make them?

One does not make a homo, it is a choice.

.

Ummm... no. I have some gay friends and I'll tell you for sure, it's not a choice, they were born like that. Conversion therapies don't work for that reason.

Not every gay person was born that way. That’s just a cop out.

 

[ding]

To see proves god is real.

What about blind people, did god fuck them up on purpose?

You mean like homosexuals?

Even if being gay was a handicap, so why did god make them?

One does not make a homo, it is a choice.

.

For some the choice is acting on it.

 

[Taz]

To see proves god is real.

What about blind people, did god fuck them up on purpose?

You mean like homosexuals?

Even if being gay was a handicap, so why did god make them?

If?

So why does god make handicapped people? I've been asking this for a while.