• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your thoughts on Agnostics

Yes in common usage you can say you have knowledge of Taranis and it is often accepted and people will generally understand what you mean but technically it is not true.
Again, being a bit pedantic here but you dont have knowledge of something that may or may not exist and the info you have learned may or may not be true. What you have is knowledge of the myths/claims/stories.
Same with the God and the bible.

But those books are the source of my knowledge. Same as the Bible is a source of knowledge. I have knowledge of both God's, from both creation accounts in the Genesis tales, and I have knowledge of the Christian God from the NT and the messianic writings of the later OT. I think you're hinging too much on fictional vs. non-fictional. People can - and do - have knowledge about things that are fictional. It's all good.


OM
 
But those books are the source of my knowledge. Same as the Bible is a source of knowledge. I have knowledge of both God's, from both creation accounts in the Genesis tales, and I have knowledge of the Christian God from the NT and the messianic writings of the later OT. I think you're hinging too much on fictional vs. non-fictional. People can - and do - have knowledge about things that are fictional. It's all good.


OM

Saying that the Bible is a source of knowledge is stretching it a bit. Is the Lord Of The Rings a source of knowledge?
 
Proof of what? That I read and learned about Taranis?

Hint: Learning about Tarnis - thus obtaining knowledge - is not the same as claiming Taranis is real.

You're missing the point, on purpose it seems. Reading claims that Taranis is real, or gods, or unicorns, or anything else, is not the same as obtaining knowledge that they are real. Knowledge and claims are not the same. Knowledge is independently verifiable. It goes beyond "I read this in a book and believed it". I has nothing to do with "I really want this to be true". What is real is real regardless of your thoughts or feelings on the matter. If evil space aliens that are coming to destroy the planet are really out there, your feelings on the subject are entirely irrelevant. Whether you want to believe it or not doesn't matter. It is a fact and your wishes and dreams and desires are meaningless. It doesn't matter what you've read unless what you've read represents demonstrable, objectively verifiable fact. It's why the Bible isn't proof of anything, because the Bible just makes claims that have not been, or cannot be verified. Therefore, it's just claims, not truth.
 
But those books are the source of my knowledge. Same as the Bible is a source of knowledge. I have knowledge of both God's, from both creation accounts in the Genesis tales, and I have knowledge of the Christian God from the NT and the messianic writings of the later OT. I think you're hinging too much on fictional vs. non-fictional. People can - and do - have knowledge about things that are fictional. It's all good.


OM

Yes you have knowledge of what is written in the Books that is NOT the same as having knowledge about God or Taranis. It isn't a matter of fictional or non fictional it is a matter of being precise.
To put it another way you have knowledge of the stories of Taranis and the Biblical version of God. Or you could say you have knowledge of what believers in Taranis or the Biblical God believe.
 
Saying that the Bible is a source of knowledge is stretching it a bit. Is the Lord Of The Rings a source of knowledge?
Yes, a source of knowledge on Orcs and Hobbits.


OM

Lord of the Rings is a source of knowledge about the stories continued therein it isn't a source of knowledge about elves, orcs or hobbits.
 
You're missing the point, on purpose it seems.

That's along the lines of what I was thinking about you as well. I never once said anything about whether something was real. The knowledge I obtained however was real.


OM
 
Lord of the Rings is a source of knowledge about the stories continued therein it isn't a source of knowledge about elves, orcs or hobbits.

The only thing that one has to know about elves is that there is no proof of their existence. The same goes for gods.
 
That's along the lines of what I was thinking about you as well. I never once said anything about whether something was real. The knowledge I obtained however was real.


OM

One can know fiction.
 
Yes you have knowledge of what is written in the Books that is NOT the same as having knowledge about God or Taranis. It isn't a matter of fictional or non fictional it is a matter of being precise.
To put it another way you have knowledge of the stories of Taranis and the Biblical version of God. Or you could say you have knowledge of what believers in Taranis or the Biblical God believe.

What's the diff? None really. I obtained knowledge about a subject. That knowledge allowed me to come to conclusions.


OM
 
The only thing that one has to know about elves is that there is no proof of their existence. The same goes for gods.

Precisely. I obtained knowledge about elves, and how they were at times past thought of as real. I concluded however that they were mythical; as most certainly have.


OM
 
And you have been educated on logic and reason.
He is MUCH better at it than you are, that's for damn sure...

The fact you chose to ignore that is your problem not mine.
However I will continue to point out you get it all backwards and make absurd claims whenever you do so.
I will do the same towards you...

As to the truth you are so far removed from it you cant see it from the dark corner you've backed yourself into.
He's doing just fine...

You want to claim the resurrection is real you must prove it
No, he doesn't have to... Religion can't be proven, Quag... It doesn't make use of proofs...

You have 0 evidence to back up the claim just claims.
Claims ARE evidence, Quag... Evidence is any statement which supports an argument. He has provided plenty of evidence for you; you just choose to deny that evidence, which is your prerogative. You adhere to your religions; he adheres to his...

Claims that if they have any truth behind them are far more easily explained without going to the supernatural.
It could be argued that the "supernatural" is actually natural...
 
That's along the lines of what I was thinking about you as well. I never once said anything about whether something was real. The knowledge I obtained however was real.

The claims you read exist, ink on a page. That doesn't mean they have any validity in the real world.
 
The claims you read exist, ink on a page. That doesn't mean they have any validity in the real world.

I never said they did. Now you're venturing into another subject altogether.


OM
 
Lord of the Rings is a source of knowledge about the stories continued therein it isn't a source of knowledge about elves, orcs or hobbits.

Actually, it is...
 
That's the only subject I've ever talked about.

That is not what I've been talking about. I have been discussing knowledge; I thought you were too. As a matter of fact I've even so much as mentioned that twice previously; referring to knowledge about a subject, and not whether it's valid/true or not. Anyway, back to knowledge... one can have knowledge of a subject whether it's fictional or non-fictional.


OM
 
What's the diff? None really. I obtained knowledge about a subject. That knowledge allowed me to come to conclusions.


OM

Sure there is a difference
Say somehow it is proven God exists but we dont actually know the nature of God, thus there is no way of knowing of the Bible is true or not.
If you use the Bible as a guide you still dont have any more knowledge than someone who has never read it about God. What you have is knowledge of the bible. The two are NOT the same unless the Bible is proven to accurately describe God.
 
Lord of the Rings is a source of knowledge about the stories continued therein it isn't a source of knowledge about elves, orcs or hobbits.

Sure it is. It tells me a lot about them. Not everything I need to know about elves, but certainly everything I need to know about orcs. :)

I'm having a hard time understanding (irony alert) why this is so hard to digest.


OM
 
That is not what I've been talking about. I have been discussing knowledge; I thought you were too. As a matter of fact I've even so much as mentioned that twice previously; referring to knowledge about a subject, and not whether it's valid/true or not. Anyway, back to knowledge... one can have knowledge of a subject whether it's fictional or non-fictional.


OM

Do you have knowledge of a god?
 
Sure there is a difference
Say somehow it is proven God exists but we dont actually know the nature of God, thus there is no way of knowing of the Bible is true or not.
If you use the Bible as a guide you still dont have any more knowledge than someone who has never read it about God. What you have is knowledge of the bible. The two are NOT the same unless the Bible is proven to accurately describe God.

I'm not talking about proving something. This is like the 4th time I've mentioned that, and yet ya'll keep going back to that. I'm talking knowledge of a subject.


OM
 
Sure it is. It tells me a lot about them. Not everything I need to know about elves, but certainly everything I need to know about orcs. :)

I'm having a hard time understanding (irony alert) why this is so hard to digest.


OM
The same thought about you had struck me.
 
Back
Top Bottom