Semantics are important, that is my belief. Suddenly, what was a belief is now an opinion. How convenient, we don't have to proove opinions, only beliefs. And I'm the one arguing semantics... And maybe that's one of the tricky things about beliefs, they aren't necessarily synonymous with truth. Why give the believer the burden of truth? I can't reason having to be fed the truth. Sure, there are notes and things to read and whatnot that can help you to see. But the realization that something may or may not be true, that something may or may not be worth believing can only come from within. The believer does not inherently have any bone to pick in your journey of realization. Maybe here's a way to think about it: The burden of truth is not on the believer or the non-believer but on the one doing the convencing. So the question is, whose trying to convence whom? Maybe you say that science is the non-believer's proof in trying to convince others that creation did not happen. So, then where's the creationist's proof, you say? I still kind of struggle with this science vs. religion argument because as far as I can tell they are simply two different ways of thinkning that ultimately lead to the same destination, and it's the bafoons on either side that see the two as dissonant. (and let's leave "religion" as a separate argument, I'm using it here interchangebly for things like "belief", "higher power", "god", and all those other horseshit labels that people identify with).
By god he means do you believe there is a god out there or not, given such a vague question answer vaguely, that simple. I am mutual, I like to believe that we weren't really supposed to know anything of the origins, and we most likely wont. No matter how much science you have or blessings you recieved you don't know anything in the big picture. Scientists admit they know close to nothing about the universe, and it's all a bunch of conspiracies speculation and contradictions. I don't know how you can eat what they say like milk and cereal with all that info they spew. Now you can believe, that, everyone is entitled to. It is all too misleading for me
Haha. I just dont know, no hard evidence of god, and there could be one. There may also not be one. Who really knows? So im in the middle... agnostic.
^^^^^ Idk. I feel like agnostic is like, "I don't want to admit I'm an atheist cause I might go to hell" This no evidence crap is silly. If you believe in evidence then you are an atheist. You don't know if God exists because you haven't seen proof. Saying your an agnostic is like saying unicorns might be hiding under your bed for all you know. Since you can't disprove it, might as well be a agnousticorn. -yuri
What qualifies "evidence", for you, Yuri? Is "evidence" constituted by what can be witnessed by the physical, and sensory, organs?
That doesn't really answer the question; but tip-toes around it. Being able to demonstrate ... Use the scientific method. And how does such a method "demonstrate" any thing - by presenting sensible evidence before one, that is to say, by presenting evidence to one's sensory-organs, right? I'm pretty sure that's how the judicial system understands, and distinguishes, the criterion for "evidence". So how do you mean it? Being able to demonstrate a cause and effect. Talk of a 'cause', and an 'effect', in this sense, is pointless and irrelevant, if they're both ("cause" and "effect") demonstrated by the very same method and means, i.e., in the same manner. Which it seems to me, you take to be the case..... soo back to my original question. What qualifies "evidence", for YOU, personally, Yuri?
By definition it would have to. In order for there to be evidence to support a hypothesis, there must of coarse be an observer to interpret said evidence. If no one with sensory organs is there to observe the evidence, it might as well not exist. Obviously a rock is evidence of the rocks existence, but in order for it to be "evident" it must be observed Otherwise one could say, God is evidence of God. Also I can't read most of your post because the text is the same color as the background (phone app) -yuri
but would you say you hold a belief in god? because if you don't, then you're atheist, whether you want to claim the label or not... agnostic is more of a hand in hand label, gnostic is derived from the greek word "know", its a claim of knowledge, a gnostic theist believes in god and claims a knowledge of its existence.... A is a prefix which means without, so agnostic means without knowledge, you make no claim of knowledge.... Theism deals with belief, a theist believes in god, Atheist (A prefix meaning without) is someone who disbelieves in god...(and a disbelief is not a belief, just like dishonesty is not honesty) Anostic atheist disbelieves in god but doesn't claim knowledge Gnostic Atheist disbelieves in god and makes a claim (GOD'S NOT REAL!)
I dont know, I used to be a christian go to church every sunday till I was 15 after that I started to question it. Why would a god that knows what going to happen create satan. If he knows whats going to happen why accept him into heaven an then when he tries to become god then make him satan? Why not just get to the point and just make him satan instead of all the other bs. Also why would god basically say accept me or be punished? "God Is all loving" why would he love somone but send them to hell? And if satan is so evil howcome he gave us free will? SIDE NOTE:they found a chariot wheel sopposedly used when jesus or god (I dont remember) parted the sea. Theres too many things in the bible that somewhat make god look evil. I just dont really know. If I dont know how can I make a decision? Thats like not knowing what effects cannabis has an to accept it as medicine or a poisonous plant. (Horrible example I know). I think im agnostic because Im not really wanting put faith into something that may or may not exist. You can label me because I have no clue. I believe im agnostic, but may be a tottal atheist. But I somewhat believe but I dont at the same time. Im not sure thats bassically it haha.
I gots a question for those coherent in religious terms--- If i entertain the possibility, but do not place assurance, what does this make me? Agnostic, atheist, what. I really dont care but when someone accuses me of something id like to see what they are getting at. Also, why must there be such a fixation to labels? I notice a lot of people aren't content unless they fall under the line of some kind of classification or criteria of some sorts.. Does it make you feel better? Why not just be you lol? Or is a made up word part of who you are, and how you associate the feeling with language? If so, we should entertain the probability that the definition of every word in a language has difference in its meaning from varying person to person perspective.. See i believe words are a way to say what they mean to us, kin to what they actually mean by definition. Words are only useful in terms of getting messages across, but not completely and absolutely as how we feel about something. I ramble, but is anyone following? Lol
Im following. To you words are just a way to communicate. Not to define the person. Almost like numbers make up the people really were just numbers I could be 7778882222999 an you could be 116389938 (random numbers) but were basically just are social sucurity number to the govt. Anyways back on topic. We are "I" not a label is what ur getting at?