|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 05, 2010 01:17 AM |
|
|
No, a Christian cannot say, "I don't know if God exists" and still be a Christian. The whole point of monotheistic religion is that a believer says, "I have faith that God exists" - which an agnostic cannot say and remain an agnostic.
As for atheists, there are very few who say, "I know for sure there is no God" - so we just apply the label to those who do not believe that there is one.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 01:23 AM |
|
|
MVass, MVass, now you're connecting Christian beliefs solely with the Church dogma. You're denying a person's right to personal Christian views.
So how do you call a guy who thinks Christ was right but knows he cannot be 100% sure of it, or sees God differently than the Church does but isn't certain about whether God is indeed the way he sees him?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 11:05 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 11:08, 05 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
@Angelito
Why. Why do you people constantly have the need to shove atheists and agnostics in the same basket. Why.
Do I really have to explain all over again that agnostics are related to atheists as much as they're related to Muslims?
Maybe you should re-read some posts better? It is Elodin who constantly calls everbody an atheists who is not a true christian.
Like: "Atheists killed millions, not true christians..."
And no, there is no need to explain the difference between an agnostic and an atheist to me, because I am very well aware of that. Thanks.
And I think you miss an important point in your explanation what an agnostic is.
An Agnostic not only says "I do not know if God exists", but he also adds "I do NOT care"!.
And this is the reason why an agnostic can't be a christian (or a muslim etc...). because if you do not care if something like a God exists, you can't be (serious) part of a religion.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 11:55 AM |
|
|
*Sigh*
Not believing in something others believe in, this phrase is semantically, linguistically and logically NONSENSE.
This has good reasons: imagination has no limits, and the act of imagining something "from thin air", that is, without "HARD evidential proof", does not change the probability that the imagined exists.
Example:
1) observed fact: Men oftentimes wake up in the morning with an erection and/or a wet sheet, having erotic dreams and so on:
2) Explanation: Succubi are special demons who visit sleeping men in the night, fuel their lust, and rob their semen; when they have it, they change into incubi, visit women, and sire the so-called changelings.
Note, that the explanation of the observed fact is completely IMAGINARY and without ANY hard evidential proof.
Succubi and Incubi would be 100% imagined, because there is not even one hard evidential proof of their existance. Decisive question:
Does the act of IMAGINING their existance change the probability of their existance in any way? No: it's STILL 0 - there is no hard evidence.
Now, BEFORE someone imagined the existance of succubi and incubi, OF COURSE EVERYONE DID NOT BELIEVE IN THEIR EXISTANCE. (No one knew about the fantasy.)
Just because someone dreamed up this fairy tale, you are not required to acknowledge this dream in any way. Since the probability of existance didn't change (no hard evidence), there is no need to acknowledge it in any way. AS BEFORE, not believing it is based on the same foundation: no hard evidence, therefore no reason to postulate existance, therefore no reason to disbelief.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 12:35 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 12:52, 05 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
An Agnostic not only says "I do not know if God exists", but he also adds "I do NOT care"!.
Quote:
And no, there is no need to explain the difference between an agnostic and an atheist to me, because I am very well aware of that. Thanks.
You apparently are not.
Caring is an entirely personal issue. An agnostic may care about finding out the truth, it's just that he finds it unreachable as of now, or on this step of evolution. Or he may not. But he can be an agnostic either way. Agnosticism implies an open mind rather than a fixed stance.
@JJ
I'm not sure I quite get what you've proven just now
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 12:44 PM |
|
Edited by bixie at 12:48, 05 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
why not?
why must one religion be correct?
why can't each person get his or her own come-uppance depending on what he or she believes in?
and I have to say, killing someone who doesn't believe in what you believe says alot about the credibility of you're religion if you have to silence intelligent debate.
Errrr...my religion does not kill people. However, if you want to talk killing, atheists have every other religino beat hands down there. They have murdered oh so very many people in the past 100 years.
I don't understand how you can think everyone can be in the correct religion. Jesus is either God or he is not. Christianity says he is, Islam says he is not. Atheism says ther is no God. Everyone can't be right.
no.
People have murdered people. Religion and Atheism don't murder anyone.
by the way, do you know about the fact that genesis was composed of at least nine different texts, and that the adventures of moses had 4 different authors. If it is divinely inspired, then why so many versions? Why would there exist a sect of christians called the Luciferians during the period 353-371 AD if lucifer was meant to be the force of evil? What about the king of Ugrid? His followers were discredited by those who wrote moses adventure later on by transforming their god, Ba'al Zebul, to Beelzebub due to the fact it was conflicting with moses rising religion. What of the Nicea convenstion in the C4th to discuss what was to be held as christian doctrine, and dismissed 16 other doctrines of the new testiment by popular vote?
If this is the word of god, why so many re-writes and editations. surely, if the bible is the word of god, there would be no need for humans to go back and edit their gods work?
and it's pretty sloppy editing, in that they reference books that are not found, like the book of Jasher and the book of the acts of solomon.
if anything, the bible is good for capturing the Zeitgeist of the people at the time, referencing superstition, the five elements of witch craft, talking animals, blood sacrifices and magic wands, sprinkling blood on people to cure leperousy. and as a moral guide, I doubt I would want to follow the words of men who thing spousal abuse, child molestation, cannibalism and prejudice on the bases of sex.
and maybe we see what we want to believe? the truth is how we see it.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 02:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No: it's STILL 0 - there is no hard evidence.
I cannot be 0 because you do not know it, you said it yourself. You can't assign chances to something unknown -- at best you can say it's unknown.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 03:36 PM |
|
|
Death, it seems you don't understand the heart of the problem.
Take ANY fact you can observe, but not explain. What would you guess, how many different explanations can be imagined or concocted? The answer is easy: an INFINITE number: since there is no hard evidence pointing into a direction you can just assume any- and everything. After all, everything was posible.
If there is an INFINITE number of elements and combinations, probability isn't properly defined anymore: number of elements: infinite; number of possible combinations: oh dear. single probability UNDEFINED; it goes against 0, however operations make no sense.
That's why something imagined or concocted never leaves the realm of imagination; there is no probability of existance for those. Which means, for all purposes it doesn't exist.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 03:49 PM |
|
|
...must...try...to...keep...head...from...exploding...
Quote:
No, a Christian cannot say, "I don't know if God exists" and still be a Christian.
There's a difference between knowledge and belief. Although, many people don't know (or believe) that.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 04:03 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker, I wasn't talking as the big picture, but saying that the probability is 0 is incorrect. You cannot assign probabilities to something unknown. Imagining something does NOT make it false, it makes it UNKNOWN.
Wind back some centuries, for instance, before the Milky Way was discovered. Someone imagines the Milky Way. There is no (current) evidence for it. Is the probability of it existing 0?
Sorry but that's EXACTLY the type of "conclusion without evidence". To claim something has 0 probability you must PROVE it. You didn't prove that the Milky Way doesn't exist -- indeed it may be impossible to prove a negative -- so best you can do is to say I DON'T KNOW, or UNKNOWN.
For the matter at hand, it is INCORRECT, statistically speaking, to say "God does not exist" or "Probability that God exists is 0.". Because this is like saying "There is no Gold on the Moon". Did you prove it?
I'm aware that you can't prove the negative and I do not ask you this UNLESS you make STATEMENTS that REQUIRE evidence.
If, instead, you said "I don't know the probability of God's existence. I think he doesn't." it would be fine and would NOT require proof -- you have not stated an absolute statement that requires it, at least according to your standards.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 06:42 PM |
|
|
Bak:
Quote:
So how do you call a guy who thinks Christ was right but knows he cannot be 100% sure of it, or sees God differently than the Church does but isn't certain about whether God is indeed the way he sees him?
A questioning/unsure Christian.
Corribus:
Yes, there is a difference between knowledge and belief, but a Christian still can't say, "I don't know if God exists", as that would be a violation of faith.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 06:49 PM |
|
|
Agnostic=unsure. It really is that simple, isn't it? An agnostic says that he doesn't know. So saying that there can't be any agnostic christians, but there's agnostic atheists seems weird.
Nonagnostic christian: "God exists."
Agnostic christian: "I'm not sure if god exists, but I believe/think he does."
Agnostic: "I don't know if god exists."
Agnostic atheist: "I'm not sure if god exists, but I think/believe he doesn't."
Nonagnostic atheist: "God doesn't exsist."
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 07:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Agnostic=unsure. It really is that simple, isn't it? An agnostic says that he doesn't know. So saying that there can't be any agnostic christians, but there's agnostic atheists seems weird.
Nonagnostic christian: "God exists."
Agnostic christian: "I'm not sure if god exists, but I believe/think he does."
Agnostic: "I don't know if god exists."
Agnostic atheist: "I'm not sure if god exists, but I think/believe he doesn't."
Nonagnostic atheist: "God doesn't exsist."
Sorry, but those quotes have nothing to do with the terms we were discussing right now. An agnostic will never say "...but I BELIEVE he does", or "I BELIEVE he does not", because an agnostic does not really care about the existance of an "upper being".
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 07:41 PM |
|
|
And a Christian will never say, "I'm not sure if God exists."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 07:59 PM |
|
|
No, you are, sadly, wrong, Death.
I claim, Death, that you are an alien from outer space, from Planet Claire, to be specific, which is the 5th planet of a red sun on the other side of the galaxy.
1) Can you prove, you are not?
I don't know, how you answer it; I answer, no.
2) Does the fact that you cannot prove you are not, makes it suddenly possible that my claim is true?
*I* answer no. *YOU*, however, would answer, yes, now. You just MIGHT be. But here is yous error:
There is absolutely NO reason whatsoever that would point into the direction of my claim. Nothing. So the claim is RANDOM.
Now: decisive question: Does the fact that a) I claim what I claim, and b) that you cannot prove my claim untrue, in ANY way DIMINISH the probability that you are in fact what you appear to be? A human, that is.
The answer MUST be no, because I can make an infinite number of claims what you could be alternatively, and if those claims would have even the SLIGHTEST influence on the probability that you are a human like the rest of us, the probability you were a human would be 0 suddenly.
So: no matter what I claim and no matter that you cannot prove me wrong - the actual, factual EVIDENCE-BASED probability what you are is NOT affected.
That does mean, that based only on my imagination the possibility that you might be an alien from planet claire is NOT EXISTING. IT EXISTS ONLY IN MY IMAGINATION.
So: without any EVIDENCE, that would point to the existance of god, god is existing only in the imagination of those claiming it. IN REALITY god is simply not existing, NOT EVEN POSSIBLY.
The thought that the claim might be true ACCIDENTALLY (after all we can't tell, can we), ASSUMES suddenly a probability higher 0 - that probability isn't there.
This isn't even the question, by the way. The question is SOLELY about the validity of the "evidence". After all, it's not like believers wouldn't have reasons to believe. The actual problem is the evaluation of the evidence.
, that makes it worthwhile to put all eggs into one basket.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 07:59 PM |
|
|
@Angelito
Like I said in my previous post, "care" does not define an agnostic or a non-agnostic. Or how would you call a person that is extremely interested in the issue and yet holds the agnostic stance that he doesn't know?
@MVass
Quote:
A questioning/unsure Christian.
And hence, an agnostic theist.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 08:05 PM |
|
|
No, you don't understand. A Christian can't say, "I don't know if God exists." There's a difference between being unsure about his nature or teachings and doubting his existence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 08:16 PM |
|
|
What you're talking about is a regular Christian, or Christian in the closer sense of the word. However, I still do not see what prevents an agnostic from thinking that Jesus was right.
Either way, what would be wrong with the term "agnostic theist"?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 08:27 PM |
|
|
There's a difference between thinking Jesus's moral teachings were right and thinking that God exists. The former is compatible with agnosticism, the latter is not.
Quote:
what would be wrong with the term "agnostic theist"?
Nothing, other than it's a rather strange position to hold.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 08:42 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:49, 05 Mar 2010.
|
JollyJoker, here is summary of why you are wrong. A probability of EXISTENCE does not CHANGE. Something that does not EXIST cannot exist at a later time.
If I make a RANDOM statement that ALIEN INTELLIGENT LIFE exists in the Universe, which is NOT based on ANY evidence whatsoever (or show it to me, if you so please), and we find such intelligence in 1000 years... how do you explain that?
Something that had probability 0 of existence suddenly exists?
It's illogical, contradiction. You do not assign SPECIFIC VALUES to UNKNOWN variables. In mathematics, you DO NOT assign 0 to unknown variables.
BTW just so we are clear, by "alien intelligent life" I do not mean 'biological life' as we know it... something completely ALIEN instead.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
