Why does our creator want us to hate each other?

reply to post by Welfhard


Okayyyyyyy, my turn to be rude to you.

Agnostiscism is sitting on the fence - just proved in your quote.

So boo sucks to you, you rude and ignorant person.

reply to post by spellbound


Ooo I'm so offended. What ever am I going to do.

If it makes it any clearer, I take it back. I'm not waiting for evidence, I plain ol' don't believe in god. I'll be surprised if some come along, I'll be surprised if some come along, but I ain't waiting.

Richard Dawkins proposed a scale of theism going from 0 to 7 where 0 is absolutely certain that God exists and 7 being absolutely certain one doesn't exist. Now Richard, as well as myself and any self-respecting atheist scientist is going to be a 6 or 6.5, simply because the concept is not falsifiable. Agnostics are going to be round 3-4.

I've actually had this exact same conversation a few weeks ago except it wasn't about theism but sexuality, trying to distinguish to someone bisexuality from homosexuality.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


Hey, I think we could be friends if you could lose that objectionable Aussieness.

So, you know you are an agnostic - that is something.

reply to post by spellbound

objectionable Aussieness.

I doth object! I shall not be grouped together with mine enemy and his vile accent! They stole our flag, our horse Farlap, numerous music bands and Russell Crowe. They almost stole our buzzie bee as well!

Well if you insist that the fact that I refuse to think it's impossible for god to exist that I'm agnostic then I must be atheistic-agnostic. Your definitions are wrong.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


OMG,

They stole our pav too.

I should have known that you r a kiwi - the most difficult people to talk to for some reason - it is easier to talk to americans

reply to post by spellbound

They stole our pav too.

Almost, but we caught the sods and chucked them out on their arses!

No I'm difficult to talk to not because I'm kiwi but because I don't put up with being undermined and so am willing to make a lot of noise, otherwise I'm quite full of cheer.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by spellbound


Who wants Russell Crowe? They can have him plus whatever else their greedy little hands get.

We have AOTEAROA - right?, or not.

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by spellbound

 

Who wants Russell Crowe? They can have him plus whatever else their greedy little hands get.

We have AOTEAROA - right?, or not.

Oz getting credit for our successes is disgusting. We have Aoteroa cos it's to big to move, bunch a crims.

These post are gonna get "OFF TOPIC POST"-ed so lets do this quick. Where you at? Auckland, Wellington?

Wanganui, the River City
la la la la la la la la
Wanganui the River City,
la la la la la la la la

reply to post by spellbound


Dunedin, our nation's first capital. I'm a uni student.

words words words words words words words words Bam! Enough.

In all honesty agnosticism is the best position to have at this juncture and the only true "objective" position to have. Regardless of the posturings of others to make them sound like they are objective *gives an air of legitimacy to claim such if you can make it sound believable*. To move beyond that is to take stance a based on belief pro or con and hardly objective.

reply to post by Welfhard


I don't subscribe to the notion that there isn't a "God" or a "Jesus Christ". I'm unclear on the point you are trying to make?

Jesus gives us free will to choose what we do, and who we are going to serve - be it Him or satan.

If He hadn't given us free will, what sense would it have made to create a world full of people that operated as puppets.
Since we have free will, we'll also be accountable for every decision, good or bad, that we make.

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by Welfhard

 

I don't subscribe to the notion that there isn't a "God" or a "Jesus Christ".

Why?

I'm unclear on the point you are trying to make?

I was saying that based on what we know about how we make decisions, there is no room for "freewill" to exist since everything must be determined.

Jesus gives us free will to choose what we do, and who we are going to serve - be it Him or satan.

So first define what you think freewill is, then give evidence for the existence of Jesus and Satan. THEN show me how your definition can exist in a universe run on causality.

If He hadn't given us free will, what sense would it have made to create a world full of people that operated as puppets.

You tell me, it's you concept here.

Since we have free will, we'll also be accountable for every decision, good or bad, that we make.

But it God made us, then gave us freewill, he gave us the capability of evil. That's his fault and his responsibility.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

In all honesty agnosticism is the best position to have at this juncture and the only true "objective" position to have.

Which is why I was kinda stunned and a little offended by the comment that spellbound made. "I detest agnostics, they're sitting on the fence."

How is that detestable? Someone who doesn't make an important decision lightly ought be respected, surely!

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


The same if you had said it, albeit for different reasons. They don't jump on the bandwagon so to speak and join the general BS petty mele of the "War of Beliefs" most likely. Activists tend to at least dislike those that don't join in the activism.
And no you did not say it, I am not even trying to infer that. Just using you as an example since you are an atheist and if he was a theist he'd be your polar opposite. Though I am pretty unsure exactly what he is, not that it matters nor do I care too much to find out.
Who knows who is right in the end? Damn I am a windbag today.


[edit on 14-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


People complain about 'labels', "we are always labelling ourselves and categorising one another." Frankly, it ticks me off when I hear this.

Labels are part of how society and civilization work. They are important.

The problem is not the labels but the accuracy thereof. People who have an issue with boxes ) are the people who don't fit properly in their own box.

That is my preface for this:

The term agnostic annoys me because it is so poorly defined and is very open ended. So open ended, in fact that apparently I become one because I'm not closed to the possibility of God. - that annoys me because I'm happy with my atheist box, I fit in here.

I think the issue is that there can be so many flavours of agnostic that if a person were to say "I'm an agnostic" they'd have to go on to explain their beliefs anyway - making the term fairly useless in the first place.

I mentioned earlier that there is the sub divisions of 'theist-agnostic' and 'atheist-agnostic'. spellbound argued that I was the latter, which technically I was a bit.

To further illustrate the point, I am bisexual, but bisexual is such an open term that it looses it meaning. It can be stretched to cover most people, or shrunk to cover a small few. It also doesn't explain a person's preference which is rather important.

These terms should be redundant, we should have better ones, we won't be we should.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


When I was talking about agnostic I meant more or less in what I consider the pure sense, does not take a stance either way and will state it as such, middle of the middle ground I guess you can say. By the mere adding of atheist to your agnostic you are leaning towards one side and thusly not truly neutral. You have cast your dice albeit not as much as other have.
It's rather like a nation supporting the warlike actions of another and providing resources but not actually putting boots on the ground so to speak while screaming it's neutral..... More or less, historically speaking, like US during the beginning of WW2. Otherwords anything but neutral.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


There is rarely true neutrality with agnosticism though, so those who aren't neutral tend to get grouped together anyway.

An agnostic will say "I don't know" or "I don't see that it can be known" but they will often amend that by saying "but I don't think one does exist" - an agnostic atheist.

But to the other end,

Agnostic theism, also known as Spiritual Agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. Per theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in.

Wiki
Albert Einstein, I think, was the latter.

There are more than two types of agnostic though,

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

* Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "absolute agnosticism")

—the view that the question of the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

* Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")

—the view that the existence or non-existence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."

* Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)

—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or non-existence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]

* Agnostic atheism

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[8]

* Agnostic theism (also called "religious" or "spiritual agnosticism")

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)

* Ignosticism

—the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.

wiki

I find that agnosticism is to broader term so people naturally make new terms. I see what you're getting at though.

I consider the pure sense, does not take a stance either way and will state it as such, middle of the middle ground

Are you referring to strong, weak or ignostic?

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


I think I explained myself rather clearly. If you are unhappy with the answer I do apologise but tough.
But do you not notice the generalizations you are using? And it is worth noting that generalizations I, well, generally wrong. Particullarly when you are talking about groups of people.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I think I explained myself rather clearly. If you are unhappy with the answer I do apologise but tough.

People who won't believe or disbelieve either way for the sake of just that. Is that what you meant by 'true' neutrality?

But do you not notice the generalizations you are using? And it is worth noting that generalizations I, well, generally wrong. Particullarly when you are talking about groups of people.

I'm not generalizing, I'm ... specificalizing. Agnostic is to general, so it makes all sense to introduce more specific bands therein. And I'm not talking about groups of people but philosophies, which are attributes of people.