Interesting

[JeremyH]

Originally Posted by Mr.Slave

Yep, it is just as arrogant to be completely certain that nothing exists and that is the only answer as it is to be completely certain that something exists and that is the only answer.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by binaryterror

I disagree completely, though you are right most would feel your way. I see your point, but I still stick to the more accurate term myself.

I don't feel that way either, it was just an interesting way to look at the definition.

[RANOVRU]

Originally Posted by binaryterror

I disagree completely, though you are right most would feel your way. I see your point, but I still stick to the more accurate term myself.

Believe in a god or gods? Theist
No belief in a god or gods? Atheist
Unsure about the existence of gods, but something must be there or done this? Agnostic

Since we're correcting defs, agnostic is no beliefs about anything.

[RANOVRU]

Originally Posted by JeremyH

Yep, it is just as arrogant to be completely certain that nothing exists and that is the only answer as it is to be completely certain that something exists and that is the only answer.

Agree 100%.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

Since we're correcting defs, agnostic is no beliefs about anything.

An agnostic believes things (creation, deities, etc) are unknowable or unknown. Call it skepticism.

[binaryterror]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

Since we're correcting defs, agnostic is no beliefs about anything.

This is not ture...thats nihilism...belief in nothing at all.

Agnostic best put is like Duuuuuude says, skeptical about things, bbecause they are unknown or unknowable.

[RANOVRU]

I wouldnt say skeptical. More like just dont have answers to. We're saying the same thing, youre just adding a "why".

And thats your opinion.

[Mr.Slave]

agnostic = the only logical place to be.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

I wouldnt say skeptical. More like just dont have answers to. We're saying the same thing, youre just adding a "why".

And thats your opinion.

Agnositics believe in possibilities, one way or the other. There could be just one God, or many, or none. We don't know for sure.

An atheist steadfastly believes that there is no god or gods. True atheists are hard to find, as most people are inclined to believe in something, even if its just a possibility.

[RANOVRU]

You said "we". Explain.

You say "possibility", I say proof.

Maybe Im more of a hybrid than I thought...

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

You said "we". Explain.

You say "possibility", I say proof.

Maybe Im more of a hybrid than I thought...

I meant "we" in the general sense.

Proof is irrelevant. Proof to you may not be proof to me, it all comes down to how badly you want to believe.

A hybrid of what?

[RANOVRU]

Proof based on fact. That is undeniable. Fact based on what we are taught, even begining in its simplest form as a child, can only be truth. Without that there is nothing.

And Im reffering to education here. Not religion. Math & science.

To tell me I can not call something fact based on sound principle evidence is to call me crazy.

And "hybrid" meaning maybe Im more somewhere in the middle of agnostic & athiest. PC speaking of course....

[RANOVRU]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

it all comes down to how badly you want to believe.

A hybrid of what?

I dont want something that requires belief. I want fact. And if there is no fact than imo we just havent evolved there yet. And we should proceed to find truth.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

I dont want something that requires belief. I want fact. And if there is no fact than imo we just havent evolved there yet. And we should proceed to find truth.

Even if someone gives you fact, you still got to believe that it is fact.

[RANOVRU]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Even if someone gives you fact, you still got to believe that it is fact.

If someone told you the earth was round, would you really have to "believe" them?

[rock hard]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

Proof based on fact. That is undeniable. Fact based on what we are taught, even begining in its simplest form as a child, can only be truth. Without that there is nothing.

And Im reffering to education here. Not religion. Math & science.

To tell me I can not call something fact based on sound principle evidence is to call me crazy.

And "hybrid" meaning maybe Im more somewhere in the middle of agnostic & athiest. PC speaking of course....

science is supossed to be the search for the truth,however there are those within science who only want to disprove certain things.

I have my beliefs,and I believe science back my beliefs.I know my creator,in a faith and in science.
I know my soul in faith and in science I know eternal life by faith and science.


Often science is wrong,I have used this before,but is still hold "water"

Once in our history,all the scientinst of the time belived with out a doubt that the earth was flat.
So the math teachers,the science teachers all was teaching what "they" thought.It was the scientist who didnt "believe" the earth could be round.

It took a working man,a sailor to prove the scientists,the edjucators wrong.
Colubus knew in his heart the world was round

Now today am I to ignore what I know in my heart just cuz the science of "this day" doesnt believe?

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

Proof based on fact. That is undeniable. Fact based on what we are taught, even begining in its simplest form as a child, can only be truth. Without that there is nothing.

And Im reffering to education here. Not religion. Math & science.

To tell me I can not call something fact based on sound principle evidence is to call me crazy.

And "hybrid" meaning maybe Im more somewhere in the middle of agnostic & athiest. PC speaking of course....

It used to be taught that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it, and that was considered truth.

Now we know better because we have proven through observation that it is in fact round and revolves around the sun

Facts and truths change when there is undeniable evidence either for or against something because it changes your perception of the situation.

There is no hybrid of agnosticism and atheism, though you can apply a sliding scale.

If you can say without a doubt that there is no god, no higher power, no matter how far removed we may be from that power, then you are an atheist.

Conversely, if you can say without a doubt that there is a god, then you are a theist.

If you aren't sure of either, you are agnostic.

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

I dont want something that requires belief. I want fact. And if there is no fact than imo we just havent evolved there yet. And we should proceed to find truth.

There was a quote, and I can't remember who it was from, but this person was a confirmed atheist. He was asked what he would say to God when he dies and finds himself face to face with Him, and must explain his disbelief.

"I would say 'Please excuse me sir, for I did the best I could with the information I was given.'"

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by rock hard

Now today am I to ignore what I know in my heart just cuz the science of "this day" doesnt believe?

Do not believe any words, spoken or written, even if by me, if they will not stand up to your own logic and reasoning. ~ Buddha

[RANOVRU]

Both of you guys mentioned the earth being flat. Correct me if Im wrong but wasnt that in itself a "belief" at the time? Just as much a belief that it was round??

Im talking about fact. Not only what reads on paper but what you can see with your eyes. Both equally however..


I know a lot of current "theories" are being challenged in the scientific community right now, as well as new ones. This is how it will always be. And the truth will prevail.


And talking about past technology has nothing to do with the current. As we evolve, the truth becomes more undeniable.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Like I said, facts change with perception. These facts that we base our lives on are merely the most recent scientific beliefs given the data at hand.