MrSmith Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 An ordinary man who proclaims to be the son of God could exist, but if you're saying that God doesn't exist, how could the son of God exist?. He wasn't the son of a God and I don’t think he ever claimed to be and even if he did claim to be the son of God doesn’t make it true. So yes he could have existed despite there being no God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Yes it does. They are two different (some would say meaningless) concepts. jb Agnosticism isn't meaningless, it's the most appropriate, decisive and accurate position to hold on the existence or none existence of God/s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 what are you talking about?This!! You were referring to children not knowing the meaning of the word "Atheist". You claim that their not knowing the meaning of the word doesn't necessarily mean they cannot be atheist. You were referring to children weren't you? probably because they don't know the word! You don't need to know the word to be one though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 no but it often encompasses that So it encompasses having no reason to consider the existence or none existence of God/s "often"... but not entirely. What else does it encompass then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Agnosticism isn't meaningless, it's the most appropriate, decisive and accurate position to hold on the existence or none existence of God/s. In the absence of any form of falsifiable definition of god then any discussion about such is nothing more than incoherent, noncognitive, nonsensical blather. The statements God exists and God does not exist are meaningless assertions which have no cognitively understandable meaning. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Agnosticism isn't meaningless, it's the most appropriate, decisive and accurate position to hold on the existence or none existence of God/s. Yes, and I reckon it's the position held by most people if they are honest. I'm agnostic(1), and since you admit "it's the most appropriate" then I guess you are too. This doesn't preclude you or me from actually holding an opinion on a likelihood on the existence of a god. I don't think there is one, which makes me an a'theist(2). 1 & 2 makes me an agnostic a'theist, and I'm guessing you're an agnostic theist. Simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 I am an igtheist yet I will be getting married in a church because they provide a nice setting for the ceremony. Some people get married in a church because it's the traditional thing to do. jb They do it because their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Why would someone who claims the creationists argument is pointless since there's no reason to invoke God/s, feel it necessary to marry in church? It's not as if you can just walk in and book it.. you have to attend numerous services leading up to it where you're required to acknowledge that the wedding is being blessed by God. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 I agree, I have been to a lot of church weddings and I don't think any of those people have been religious-they definitely don't go to churches! They're hypocrites.. that's what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 They do it because their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Why would someone who claims the creationists argument is pointless since there's no reason to invoke God/s, feel it necessary to marry in church? It's not as if you can just walk in and book it.. you have to attend numerous services leading up to it where you're required to acknowledge that the wedding is being blessed by God. :hihi: They are nice buildings to get married in (at least some of them are anyway). If there was a way to get married in a church without having a religious ceremony I would do so. As there is not I'm quite happy to play along to get what I want. Quite why you're bringing cretinism into it is beyond me. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 No I don't need to question your motives.. but I feel I must. Are your kids Christened too? I'm not Christened, and neither will my children be Christened when the stork finally decides to visit my wife and I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.