Nah - we're just born without the capability and the knowledge required to respond to such questions. From there, various factors intervene.
What does “agnostic” mean? The term “agnostic” is derived from two Greek words: a, meaning “no,” and gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” Literally an AGNOSTIC is a person who claims to have no knowledge. Often agnostics apply this lack of knowledge to the existence of God. In this case, an agnostic is one who does not affirm or deny the existence of God. Never ceases to amaze me how atheists contradict themselves in literally everything then scour the bible looking for one screw up, the hypocrisy and lies are amazing, gotta get out crayolas to explain the most simple concepts. Once again, a NEWBORN HAS NO KNOWLEDGE So lets try putting the round peg in the round hole for a change, can we do that?
I agree with this - at least in what is stated within this post. Scouring the bible for errors would need to turn up truly large errors relating to religion - not the relatively small stuff we constantly hear about. My view is that most of the bible is probably allegory. It make no sense that there was a "Tree of Life" or a "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" in early Iraq and that both died. The importance of the Noah story doesn't come from there being a physical flood or cramming animals in a boat. The order of creation was probably meaningful to some truly ancient culture. Etc.
I don't know of any theist who stops at the binary "is" v. "isn't" question. They all head down the "is" path with major assumptions that they think follow from "is". For example, they assume god must be especially interested in these homo variants that came about after a few billion years. Why do they not consider that perhaps there are more advanced forms that will come later after only a few more billion years - forms this "is" will actually care about? As for the "And nobody else does, either!", I would say that is just the more colloquial version of "nobody else I know of has shown significant evidence, either!". After all, people keep asking for evidence and getting zip.
Thanks. Can someone really make you think something you do not? Brainwashing works, but it's a temporary condition since most people revert to themselves once removed from the conditioning environment.
I don't know of any atheist who stops at that question, but heads down the 'isn't' path with major assumptions. IOW, you merely describe human nature. And i think you are wrong, in this perception. I know a great many theists AND atheists who carry their beliefs with doubt & introspection, not rabid dogmatism. You cannot judge all of humanity based on the rantings of a few internet philosophers. I have repeatedly pointed out this simple binary possibility, & called either view 'faith'. So i have not made any 'major assumptions', but allow either as valid opinions about the nature of the universe. What about your assumptions, here? 'perhaps there are more advanced forms that will come later after only a few more billion years'.. IS this not merely YOUR 'assumption' about the nature of the universe? Why is this 'belief' somehow more compelling than a belief in a creator?
so.. let me get this straight. If atheists 'mock' theism, that is all in good fun, & deserved, because theists are so stupid. But if a theist returns fire, or points out inconsistencies in an internet 'debate', that is 'Mockery!'
It hardly makes sense to categorically deny a statement... ...which you clearly didn't understand to begin with.
no, that is the only explanation. Or are you claiming that there is an invisible magical friend that whispers in your ear to not do something bad?
Its beyond inconsistencies when nihilists cant even put round pegs in round holes and square pegs in square holes, seriously. How difficult is it for them to match up baby = no knowledge with agnostic = no knowledge? They want to hijack reality and pretend everyone is born an atheist to promote their cause and religion.
They demand the ridiculous, far beyond reasonable doubt, and into absolute in which there is no such thing, they demand the impossible while at the same time cant even justify their lack of belief position with a distinction, and at the same time advocates faith in science and the atheist bible worshiping the secular humanist state as their God.
Whatever you conceive to be mockery is on you and your claims. In fact, it is not mockery to dispute what another poster posts without any backing for the assertion.
..then by your own definition, the poster you accused of 'mocking!', was not mocking at all. So why did you accuse him of 'mocking?' I figure it is part & parcel of internet forums. Some people have more fun trying to make a witty comeback over a rational reply, anyday of the week. Others don't really have anything else in their arsenal, other than ridicule & mocking. But i found it curious that you would point out 'mocking!' from a particular poster, but not see it in the multitude of replies before, including the OP. It seems very clear to me, that 'mocking!' is just good fun, if it is directed toward Christians, in particular, but is in very bad form, if directed towards atheists, or muslims, or any other religious belief.. ..just the way it is. Nothing to do about it.
Ok, first, when I say "perhaps" it is not introducing an assumption or belief,obviously. Also, having seen zero evidence of the supernatural, I re!lly don't know what you mean by further assumptions. What would be the next assumption That depends on seeing no evidence of the supernatural? So, no I do not see the path of not seeing any evidence as being a path of belief or faith. It is simply what it is - the path of not having seen evidence. But, having decided there is a supernatural, there are numerous paths to take that - it is a very diffetent rabbit hole than simply not seeing evidence of the supernatural. I have never seen such a person who hasn't come to many conclusions of belief and faith subsequent to begin ing that particular of your two forks.
You say, "[a]n atheist need only believe that the evidence for [G]od[] is lacking[]", when the existence of conscience is such evidence; so if you have a conscience, you hvae all the evidence for God anyone needs.
That isn't evidence of the supernatural. That is evidence of complex brains. Just out of curiosity, do you think it is a sign that there exists an undetectable "soul" that rules our behavior, or do you think that complexity means God made our brains, or what?
atheists are really arrogant and assume nothing can be known if it cant be hit with a hammer. simple as that. math cant be hit with a hammer but you can conceptualize it, and it has nothing to do with and can NOT BE FOUND IN NATURE, and has no substance. Now lets take one of the animals say a dog, they see a building and its just there, nothing more, no conception humans did it, much less one shred of evidence beyond natural, they are not capable of it, therefore the dog would say math does not exist and demand proof of it. Point being that some people can conceptualize beyond natural physical world, imagine one incredibly gifted dog trying to explain math to another. The analogy of course is why would it be any different for man and God?
Yeah man, like, I can like, feel the wind but, it's kind of amazing that like, I can't see the wind. Isn't that like teh baby Jebus and all?
