Your thoughts on Agnostics

[noonereal]

Ah yes, good old fashioned intolerance. I loathe religion as well, but I can coexist peacefully with it.


OM

It should be treated as gays in the military had been treated.

Don't ask don't tell.

 

[Omega Man]

It should be treated as gays in the military had been treated.

Don't ask don't tell.

So according to your logic, one shouldn't discuss disabilities either? What about age? Is that off the table too?


OM

 

[noonereal]

So according to your logic, one shouldn't discuss disabilities either


OM

yet another fallacy

I guess that is how religious nuts are taught to cope with life.

 

[OlNate]

It should be treated as gays in the military had been treated.

Don't ask don't tell.

Hey buddy...84% of the world's population believe in one form of religion or another. Get back in your lane.

 

[noonereal]

Hey buddy...84% of the world's population believe in one form of religion or another.

2 wrongs don't make a right. Not even 2 billion wrongs.

I am gonna stay right here, bub.

 

[gfm7175]

Out of sheer curiosity, how precisely was that determination made?


OM

Through my experiences.

Keeping personal details out of it, I wanted a particular suffering of mine to be taken away from me. I prayed for it to be taken away (in effect, wanting comfort and contentness). God did not take it away [it has since become a bit lesser, but it is still present], but I still have found the comfort and contentness that I was looking for.

He rejected my prayer to remove my suffering, since it came from a "my will be done" state of mind, but accepted my prayer for comfort and contentness because it came from a "your will be done" state of mind. In effect, God taught me how to properly pray to him.


Now, can I prove this to be the case? No... It's all religious belief. Are there other sensible explanations which don't require God? Yes, there are. What is difficult about this type of thing is that I can't place you into my first person perspective. It's impossible to describe what I experienced in a way that would allow you to see it like I saw it. Also, your "reality" lens will lead you to view the event differently than my "reality" lens leads me to view it [besides the fact that you are viewing it from 3rd person and I viewed it from 1st person]...

 

[Omega Man]

yet another fallacy.

Which fallacy would that be? The one where I equated religion to sexual orientation? I figured since you were going in that direction, disabilities was next in line.

I guess that is how religious nuts are taught to cope with life.

If it's me that you're referring to as a religious nut, then that makes your whole fallacy comment a tad ironic. At best, I'm an agnostic. No matter how you slice it, I am not religious. However if it wasn't me you were referring to when responding to my comment, then who were you impugning?


OM

 

[Omega Man]

Through my experiences.

Keeping personal details out of it, I wanted a particular suffering of mine to be taken away from me. I prayed for it to be taken away (in effect, wanting comfort and contentness). God did not take it away [it has since become a bit lesser, but it is still present], but I still have found the comfort and contentness that I was looking for.

He rejected my prayer to remove my suffering, since it came from a "my will be done" state of mind, but accepted my prayer for comfort and contentness because it came from a "your will be done" state of mind. In effect, God taught me how to properly pray to him.


Now, can I prove this to be the case? No... It's all religious belief. Are there other sensible explanations which don't require God? Yes, there are. What is difficult about this type of thing is that I can't place you into my first person perspective. It's impossible to describe what I experienced in a way that would allow you to see it like I saw it. Also, your "reality" lens will lead you to view the event differently than my "reality" lens leads me to view it [besides the fact that you are viewing it from 3rd person and I viewed it from 1st person]...

Thank you for explaining. I will accept it for what it is.


OM

 

[OlNate]

2 wrongs don't make a right. Not even 2 billion wrongs.

I am gonna stay right here, bub.

Cool...it'll be fun to watch you get run over. The point is, despite all your bleating, you're in a tiny minority of people inhabiting this world, utterly impotent. And there's no Viagra to fix that kind of impotence.

Seriously, who, exactly, do you think you are? It's one thing not to believe, I'd support you to the end of the world in that endeavor. But you want to silence religion? How do you see that going, exactly? Please, elaborate, so we can fully understand your bigotry.

 

[gfm7175]

yet another fallacy

Fallacy Fallacy. He didn't commit a logical fallacy. I don't think you even understand what a logical fallacy even is...

I guess that is how religious nuts are taught to cope with life.

Bulverism Fallacy. Insult Fallacy.

You seem to believe in the religion of Atheism, so are you calling yourself a "religious nut"? That's not very nice of you...

 

[gfm7175]

always with this fallacy.

Fallacy Fallacy. I committed no logical fallacy there. You seem to not even know what a fallacy is. A fallacy is a logic error. It works much like a mathematical error works.

Try this, prove he doe sexist.

I can't. To even attempt to prove God's existence would lead me to commit the Circular Argument Fallacy. I fully recognize the circular nature of my religion. You don't seem to recognize the circular nature of yours (Atheism).

Mind blowing.

Okay.

 

[jmotivator]

Note I said "demonstrably". No one can DEMONSTRATE that they have any knowledge of any god, period. They might think they do. They might believe they do. But they can't prove that they do to anyone else.

Well, a few things...

1) Based on the structure of your sentence it read like you could demonstrate nobody had knowledge of God.

2) If you are discussing whether someone has KNOWLEDGE of God. I can tell you what I know about God and I have demonstrated my knowledge of God.

3) Note I said "necessarily"


Had you stated that nobody has demonstrable PROOF of God then I would likely still disagree, but for different reason.

 

[gfm7175]

Thank you for explaining. I will accept it for what it is.


OM

Exactly... It's nothing more than my belief, a belief which extends from the initial circular argument of Christianity (that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is).

 

[gfm7175]

Well, in her defense, what becomes of our energy once it is transferred out of our lifeless bodies? Where does it go?


OM

Very good question... and one which we don't know for sure... I certainly have my beliefs. They differ from Elvira's beliefs (in areas), and I'm sure her's and mine differ from your's and noonereal's...

I'd be willing to bet that the four of us would offer up four differing beliefs as to what becomes of our energy...

 

[Quag]

That is the fallacy always used! Congratulations.

The fact is, you need to prove your insane contention or accept that it's more than a wild construct which has ZERO science behind it.

You folks literally bastardize science in trying to support your voodoo.

What fallacy?
How am I bastardizing science?
What voodoo am I supporting exactly?

 

[Cephus]

Well, a few things...

1) Based on the structure of your sentence it read like you could demonstrate nobody had knowledge of God.

2) If you are discussing whether someone has KNOWLEDGE of God. I can tell you what I know about God and I have demonstrated my knowledge of God.

3) Note I said "necessarily"


Had you stated that nobody has demonstrable PROOF of God then I would likely still disagree, but for different reason.

Until someone can demonstrate their knowledge of gods, there is no reason to think that anyone can do it. Considering all the absolute failures that go on around here, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.

 

[gfm7175]

Until someone can demonstrate their knowledge of gods, there is no reason to think that anyone can do it. Considering all the absolute failures that go on around here, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.

How do you plan on determining whether or not someone has "demonstrated their knowledge" of gods?

Remember, your response to the above question is coming from a position where you yourself [as you admitted in your post] don't have any knowledge of gods...

 

[Omega Man]

I have knowledge of Taranis. Does that remove Taranis from the realm of myth and suggestion?


OM

 

[jmotivator]

Until someone can demonstrate their knowledge of gods, there is no reason to think that anyone can do it. Considering all the absolute failures that go on around here, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.

Sigh. If someone tells you what they know of God they have demonstrated knowledge of God. I think you are either playing some semantic game very poorly or using "demonstrable" and "knowledge" is ways that you would need to define.

 

[Cephus]

Sigh. If someone tells you what they know of God they have demonstrated knowledge of God. I think you are either playing some semantic game very poorly or using "demonstrable" and "knowledge" is ways that you would need to define.

No, no more than if someone tells me they know of unicorns, they have demonstrated knowledge of unicorns. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing. If someone believes in God, that doesn't mean they know God is real. They believe, they do not know. Words have meanings for a reason.

 

[RAMOSS]

Sigh. If someone tells you what they know of God they have demonstrated knowledge of God. I think you are either playing some semantic game very poorly or using "demonstrable" and "knowledge" is ways that you would need to define.

Well, they demonstrated a belief in God, not knowledge. They might have personal, subjective experiences that they interpret at 'God', but they can not show that their experience IS God.

That is not knowledge, that is belief. You do not have anything you can show others.

 

[Omega Man]

Well, they demonstrated a belief in God, not knowledge. They might have personal, subjective experiences that they interpret at 'God', but they can not show that their experience IS God.

That is not knowledge, that is belief. You do not have anything you can show others.

They have knowledge of that god they believe in, otherwise they would have no reason to believe in that god.


OM

 

[RAMOSS]

They have knowledge of that god they believe in, otherwise they would have no reason to believe in that god.


OM

They have knowledge about the belief of that God, not of that God's actual existence. They might have an experience that they attribute to that god existing, but that does not demonstrate that God exists.

 

[Omega Man]

They have knowledge about the belief of that God, not of that God's actual existence. They might have an experience that they attribute to that god existing, but that does not demonstrate that God exists.

Unless I overlooked it, I didn't see anyone say knowledge of existence; only knowledge of that which they believe to exist


OM

 

[Omega Man]

Refer back to my post about Taranis. I learned long ago about Taranis, therefore I have knowledge about Tarnis. Based upon this knowledge, I can therefore determine whether Taranis is real or mythical. Unfortunately, when it comes to different versions of the Judeo-Christian deities, the water gets a bit muddied. Whereas superstitious cultures from an ancient era were prone to belief in their cultural deities, the biblical "God" has been perpetuated religiously, socially, and politically. I don't claim that a creative force of some sort doesn't exist (commonly referred to as "God"), I just don't believe that ancient nomads somehow got it right. If others want to believe, good for them. Everyone's gotta believe in something I suppose.


OM