Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And likely false, per the evidence. Yes, ding completely made that up. He enjoys making things up so everyone else has to spend 5 pages sifting through the steaming pile of nonsense he just pinched off.To say “the laws were in place before the universe itself” is TOTAL SPECULATION with NO EVIDENCE.
You misunderstand science and its agnoticism.Agnosticism neither denies nor acknowledges GodAGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.
Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).
No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...
If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.
If you are agnostic you play it safe, or so one thinks
Believing that nothing + nothing = creation, is fantasy
Believing that a whole bunch of nothing
created a whole bunch of different life forms.....
life forms and living organisms all dependent on each other
That, somehow, from nothingness
an intelligent life form could manifest
with self sustaining precision, is absurd
You can not see the wind but you can feel it
and see the leaves, grass, flags and water moved by it
No faith is faith in itself
The “real science is creation science”?Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.
Too much "faith-based" science like evolution these days. I studied both evolution and believed in that for several years until I compared it with creation science. The real science is creation science and is based on the scientific method.
Oh yeah. Agnostics are people who need a clue. I just lump them together with atheists.
Your last quote reminds me of another phrase: “I’m so low that everything looks up to me”!AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.
Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).
No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...
If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.
If I am honest, I need to tell you about a vision I had from Jesus. That's if you want to hear about it and if you think those things are possible, I was walking around on the dark side of life and missing no opportunity to give God the finger, and he humbled me good (somewhere around the 10,000th time I did it, he has (almost) infinite patience).
I tell people about it at sites like this and generally they don't seem to be swayed if they are already of the mind that they're correct, people like me need analyzed and straightjacketed.
So I don't want to waste the type but I will tell you that people who are agnostic, if they are honest about it, feel that they are the only gods that need worshipped around here thank you very much because THEY got that degree, THEY got that house, THEY earned everything that THEY have, and really dont have anyone to thank but themselves, when they get right down to it.
That's where I was at BTW, and alot of people like to compartmentalize God, "OK, I've put everything in order, I got the place, I got the babe, I got the stuff, NOW I'm gonna go on a search for God, and see if I can find one I can find one I agree with, I."
It was a dark day, one of the darkest of my life. It was the middle of winter it was cold as fuck and I was living in my car, I, was in a car that wouldn't start in the middle of howling cold winter wind feeling quite desperate but I've heard a statement which is true that "the darker it is, the easier it is to see the light".
That sounds like you have “no belief” (weak atheist), as distinct from having a belief ... that there are no gods (strong atheist).I am not claiming to know what others believe!-You are confusing arrogance with honesty about ignorance.That is what I said. Claiming that they are agnostic is somewhat arrogant, wouldn't you say?
To be dishonest and pretend you know something beyond your experiences or rational perceptions of knowledge is arrogant.
No, I am claiming that it is arrogant to claim to know what someone believes more than they do. If someone does not believe in any god, they are, by definition, and atheist. To claim that they are an agnostic is arrogant and insulting.
I am simply saying that if you/others are not honest about your ignorance and claim knowledge of a god, then YOU claimants are arrogant ... OR put up your evidence.
An ignostic (don’t know) is also a weak atheist (no belief). If you admit ignorance, then you have no belief ... if you are honest and logical.
I am very honest. I do not believe in any deity or god. That, by definition, is an atheist.
An honest agnostic is also a “weak atheist”.
Yes, my thread title is fact, in my opinion, and I challenge anyone who is not agnostic AND thinks they are honest ...Your thread title stated a supposed fact.AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.
Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).
No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...
If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.
Now it's your opinion.
I'm not agnostic. I state that as a fact because I'm an expert in the field of my thoughts and beliefs and faith.
You don't speak for me.
Yes, my thread title is fact, in my opinion, and I challenge anyone who is not agnostic AND thinks they are honest ...Your thread title stated a supposed fact.AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.
Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).
No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...
If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.
Now it's your opinion.
I'm not agnostic. I state that as a fact because I'm an expert in the field of my thoughts and beliefs and faith.
You don't speak for me.
to provide objective evidence to support your beliefs OR I can only hypothesize that you have faith in fantasy instead of reality.
I also do not believe CURRENT concepts & experiences about a deity or religious claims, but I am open minded about that which I do not yet know.That sounds like you have “no belief” (weak atheist), as distinct from having a belief ... that there are no gods (strong atheist).I am not claiming to know what others believe!-You are confusing arrogance with honesty about ignorance.
To be dishonest and pretend you know something beyond your experiences or rational perceptions of knowledge is arrogant.
No, I am claiming that it is arrogant to claim to know what someone believes more than they do. If someone does not believe in any god, they are, by definition, and atheist. To claim that they are an agnostic is arrogant and insulting.
I am simply saying that if you/others are not honest about your ignorance and claim knowledge of a god, then YOU claimants are arrogant ... OR put up your evidence.
An ignostic (don’t know) is also a weak atheist (no belief). If you admit ignorance, then you have no belief ... if you are honest and logical.
I am very honest. I do not believe in any deity or god. That, by definition, is an atheist.
An honest agnostic is also a “weak atheist”.
"Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"
Not sure where you get the "weak" or "strong" version of this. But the fact that I do not believe in any deity is the definition of "Atheist".
I do NOT know that non-agnostic beliefs are invalid, but I am pessimistic (yet open-minded) AND challenge those believers to put up or admit they are NOT HONEST.Yes, my thread title is fact, in my opinion, and I challenge anyone who is not agnostic AND thinks they are honest ...Your thread title stated a supposed fact.AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.
Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).
No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...
If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.
Now it's your opinion.
I'm not agnostic. I state that as a fact because I'm an expert in the field of my thoughts and beliefs and faith.
You don't speak for me.
to provide objective evidence to support your beliefs OR I can only hypothesize that you have faith in fantasy instead of reality.
Wait, you want someone to provide objective evidence that something does not exist? LOL Ok then.
I still find it arrogant that you pretend to know someone's beliefs better than they do.
I understand it’s difficult to break out of the “emotional baggage trap” known in social sciences as cultural socialization.I'm new to this thread. But I have to admit that I am queasy. The Roman Catholic experience and the fundie protestant experience, like frankie graham, focus on the family, family research council, et al., have me teetering on the brink of simply becoming an agnostic. I know that no people on this earth have any knowledge or communication with any Supreme Creator. I have always tried to believe in the existence of a Creator, but these people have destroyed any belief I would have.
I teeter on the brink. I have gone to places like the Vatican, Ephesus, Canterbury. I even have had a noted theologian tell me that most of it is BS, but there is something to preserve in this all. But this is all the activities of human beings like you and I. I have not even encountered people like Native Americans, Hindus, Chinese, etc., who might know something. All we can know is nothing, but the theologian I met might be right that there is something out there that has been there since the dawn of humanity.I understand it’s difficult to break out of the “emotional baggage trap” known in social sciences as cultural socialization.I'm new to this thread. But I have to admit that I am queasy. The Roman Catholic experience and the fundie protestant experience, like frankie graham, focus on the family, family research council, et al., have me teetering on the brink of simply becoming an agnostic. I know that no people on this earth have any knowledge or communication with any Supreme Creator. I have always tried to believe in the existence of a Creator, but these people have destroyed any belief I would have.
I have experienced that too. Both my parents were religious, especially before they died. Fear is a major motivation to conform.
When I became a scientific thinker, I gained my independence from outdated norms, and started thinking for myself with confidence.
I also do not believe CURRENT concepts & experiences about a deity or religious claims, but I am open minded about that which I do not yet know.That sounds like you have “no belief” (weak atheist), as distinct from having a belief ... that there are no gods (strong atheist).I am not claiming to know what others believe!-No, I am claiming that it is arrogant to claim to know what someone believes more than they do. If someone does not believe in any god, they are, by definition, and atheist. To claim that they are an agnostic is arrogant and insulting.
I am simply saying that if you/others are not honest about your ignorance and claim knowledge of a god, then YOU claimants are arrogant ... OR put up your evidence.
An ignostic (don’t know) is also a weak atheist (no belief). If you admit ignorance, then you have no belief ... if you are honest and logical.
I am very honest. I do not believe in any deity or god. That, by definition, is an atheist.
An honest agnostic is also a “weak atheist”.
"Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"
Not sure where you get the "weak" or "strong" version of this. But the fact that I do not believe in any deity is the definition of "Atheist".
Here is a definition that differentiates atheist types:
“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none.“ ...
Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia
I do NOT know that non-agnostic beliefs are invalid, but I am pessimistic (yet open-minded) AND challenge those believers to put up or admit they are NOT HONEST.Yes, my thread title is fact, in my opinion, and I challenge anyone who is not agnostic AND thinks they are honest ...Your thread title stated a supposed fact.AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.
Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).
No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...
If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.
Now it's your opinion.
I'm not agnostic. I state that as a fact because I'm an expert in the field of my thoughts and beliefs and faith.
You don't speak for me.
to provide objective evidence to support your beliefs OR I can only hypothesize that you have faith in fantasy instead of reality.
Wait, you want someone to provide objective evidence that something does not exist? LOL Ok then.
I still find it arrogant that you pretend to know someone's beliefs better than they do.
I would have to agree agnosticism is the only logical position. That does not preclude belief, just the acknowledgement that belief does not equate to knowledge. Frankly, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief regarding deities.
I would have to agree agnosticism is the only logical position. That does not preclude belief, just the acknowledgement that belief does not equate to knowledge. Frankly, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief regarding deities.
Hello, I am WinterBorn. I do not believe in any deity. Pleased to meet you.
Now you have.
Merriam Webster is conservative and often behind current Internet-speed cultural thoughts.I also do not believe CURRENT concepts & experiences about a deity or religious claims, but I am open minded about that which I do not yet know.That sounds like you have “no belief” (weak atheist), as distinct from having a belief ... that there are no gods (strong atheist).I am not claiming to know what others believe!-
I am simply saying that if you/others are not honest about your ignorance and claim knowledge of a god, then YOU claimants are arrogant ... OR put up your evidence.
An ignostic (don’t know) is also a weak atheist (no belief). If you admit ignorance, then you have no belief ... if you are honest and logical.
I am very honest. I do not believe in any deity or god. That, by definition, is an atheist.
An honest agnostic is also a “weak atheist”.
"Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"
Not sure where you get the "weak" or "strong" version of this. But the fact that I do not believe in any deity is the definition of "Atheist".
Here is a definition that differentiates atheist types:
“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none.“ ...
Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia
The definition I posted before is from Merriam Webster. The definition you posted is from Wikipedia. That alone should answer the question.
I don't weakly not believe in any god. I don't strongly not believe in any god. I simply do not believe in any god at all. You are trying to argue a moot point with semantics.
Again, per Merriam Webster:
"Definition of agnostic
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
That does not describe my beliefs.
I would have to agree agnosticism is the only logical position. That does not preclude belief, just the acknowledgement that belief does not equate to knowledge. Frankly, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief regarding deities.
Hello, I am WinterBorn. I do not believe in any deity. Pleased to meet you.
Now you have.
No, I have met someone who makes that claim. You certainly aren't the first there. You have no opinions of any kind regarding the existence of any deity?
Merriam Webster is conservative and often behind current Internet-speed cultural thoughts.I also do not believe CURRENT concepts & experiences about a deity or religious claims, but I am open minded about that which I do not yet know.That sounds like you have “no belief” (weak atheist), as distinct from having a belief ... that there are no gods (strong atheist).I am very honest. I do not believe in any deity or god. That, by definition, is an atheist.
An honest agnostic is also a “weak atheist”.
"Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"
Not sure where you get the "weak" or "strong" version of this. But the fact that I do not believe in any deity is the definition of "Atheist".
Here is a definition that differentiates atheist types:
“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none.“ ...
Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia
The definition I posted before is from Merriam Webster. The definition you posted is from Wikipedia. That alone should answer the question.
I don't weakly not believe in any god. I don't strongly not believe in any god. I simply do not believe in any god at all. You are trying to argue a moot point with semantics.
Again, per Merriam Webster:
"Definition of agnostic
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
That does not describe my beliefs.
How about the definition of IGNOTICISM:
ignosticism - Wiktionary
- The philosophical position that existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.
Merriam Webster is conservative and often behind current Internet-speed cultural thoughts.I also do not believe CURRENT concepts & experiences about a deity or religious claims, but I am open minded about that which I do not yet know.That sounds like you have “no belief” (weak atheist), as distinct from having a belief ... that there are no gods (strong atheist).I am very honest. I do not believe in any deity or god. That, by definition, is an atheist.
An honest agnostic is also a “weak atheist”.
"Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"
Not sure where you get the "weak" or "strong" version of this. But the fact that I do not believe in any deity is the definition of "Atheist".
Here is a definition that differentiates atheist types:
“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none.“ ...
Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia
The definition I posted before is from Merriam Webster. The definition you posted is from Wikipedia. That alone should answer the question.
I don't weakly not believe in any god. I don't strongly not believe in any god. I simply do not believe in any god at all. You are trying to argue a moot point with semantics.
Again, per Merriam Webster:
"Definition of agnostic
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
That does not describe my beliefs.
How about the definition of IGNOTICISM:
ignosticism - Wiktionary
- The philosophical position that existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.
