Bible - Fiction?

[mjw47]

They can't prove it to you because you haven't opened your heart and mind to the possibility of knowing God. Being agnostic prevents you ever knowing the love of God because you believe that the nature of God is unknowable. Atheists on the other hand haven't closed the minds and hearts to the possibility of ever knowing God.

 

Not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion. As it happens I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility of there being a God.

 

It's just that I find it a little strange that the Gods envisaged by virtually all religions include a human like (or even animal like) depiction of Gods appearance.

 

Now if you were God, would you have gone with the biped ,two arms .two eyes scenario?

I mean it immediately causes problems. Now you need a chair.

 

As mentioned previously I was raised Catholic & one of the first things I remember which started me doubting was the 'Man was created in the image of God' statement.

 

Human hubris at it's pinnacle.

 

There was also the 'It's a blessed mystery' answer to any question they had no answer to.

Tried using that once in a maths lesson. Didn't try it again.

[angos]

Not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion. As it happens I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility of there being a God.

Then you can't be agnostic, (a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.) This leaves it impossible for you to accept the existence or nature of God.

 

 

 

It's just that I find it a little strange that the Gods envisaged by virtually all religions include a human like (or even animal like) depiction of Gods appearance.

 

Now if you were God, would you have gone with the biped ,two arms .two eyes scenario?

 

 

I mean it immediately causes problems. Now you need a chair.

 

As mentioned previously I was raised Catholic & one of the first things I remember which started me doubting was the 'Man was created in the image of God' statement.

Its not unreasonable to consider the possibility that an all powerful God would appear to humans in humans form, and to other species in their form.

[Ryedo40]

The point is that language changes, & for better or worse, common usage trumps original meaning.

 

That's why it's important to define what you mean when using words to avoid any confusion.

 

Should a news report state that a group of paramilitaries ' decimated ' a village, people imagine a massacre took place, with indiscriminate killing.

 

And..

 

They would not assume that the paramilitaries lined the villagers up & then proceeded from a random point to execute every tenth person would they?

 

I'd assume something like that occurred when they were decimating the village.

 

Edit: Yes, people do go by the contemporary usage of the word, but when it's not used in that way, you clarify that to avoid confusion.

 

Despite many knowing the origins of the word, they accept it no longer applies.

 

Because you think the original meaning or common usage of a word no longer applies, doesn't mean that others think that.

 

That is all I'm saying, ask people what an atheist is, & most will probably reply 'someone who doesn't believe in God.

What they mean is the existence of God(s).

 

And they'd be correct:

 

I don't believe in the existence of god, therefore I don't believe in god.

 

God may exist, but I don't find any convincing reason to believe god does; therefore I don't believe in the existence of god and I don't believe in god.

 

Should you say to them what do you call someone who doesn't believe in God but accepts that it is not impossible for one to exist, most people would say agnostic.

 

Most people, from my experience, don't even have the term agnostic or atheist in their vocabulary. Out of those who do, from my experience, most would say that person is an atheist.

 

As to labeling atheists believers, I maintain that anyone who holds a point of view, which they cannot provide proof of, has precisely that, 'a point of view'.

 

Proof of what? Their atheism?

 

Theists claim god exists. It's up to them to substantiate that claim. Atheists just don't accept those claims because of the theists inability to substantiate them.

 

Presumably, they would not hold that point of view without some measure of belief in it?

Therefore, in my opinion it is perfectly correct to refer to them as 'believers'.

 

And I truly believe that.

 

I don't believe, therefore I'm a believer?

 

Well I don't usually call people names, but you're an idiot.

[mjw47]

That's why it's important to define what you mean when using words to avoid any confusion.

 

 

 

And..

 

 

 

I'd assume something like that occurred when they were decimating the village.

 

Edit: Yes, people do go by the contemporary usage of the word, but when it's not used in that way, you clarify that to avoid confusion.

 

 

 

Because you think the original meaning or common usage of a word no longer applies, doesn't mean that others think that.

 

 

 

And they'd be correct:

 

I don't believe in the existence of god, therefore I don't believe in god.

 

God may exist, but I don't find any convincing reason to believe god does; therefore I don't believe in the existence of god and I don't believe in god.

 

 

 

Most people, from my experience, don't even have the term agnostic or atheist in their vocabulary. Out of those who do, from my experience, most would say that person is an atheist.

 

 

 

Proof of what? Their atheism?

 

Theists claim god exists. It's up to them to substantiate that claim. Atheists just don't accept those claims because of the theists inability to substantiate them.

 

 

 

I don't believe, therefore I'm a believer?

 

Well I don't usually call people names, but you're an idiot.

 

Well as you have chosen to lower the tone to one of personal abuse, I feel free to inform you that you are one of the most hard of understanding people I have ever come across.

 

Now normally when someone starts throwing abuse about it means that they are losing the argument.

Not in your case however, you are apparently that obtuse that you do not even understand the argument.

 

This next bit I shall type very slowly in order to give you a chance to comprehend, OK?

 

A person states to you that they have an opinion on a particular subject, they then tell you what that opinion is.

 

You then say to them ' Do you believe that?'

 

They say ' No '.

You then conclude that you must be dealing with a person of limited intellect.

 

Later on another person tells you that they hold an opinion, they then tell you what that opinion is.

 

You say to them 'Do you believe that?'

 

They say 'Yes'.

 

Whether you agree or disagree with their opinion you have to accept that they stand by their opinions & believe in them. They have belief in their opinion. This therefore makes them a 'believer' in their viewpoint. Yes? Simple enough for you to grasp?

 

An opinion unsupported by facts is merely a belief of the person who holds that opinion. There are no facts with regard to the existence, or none existence of God.

 

People hold many differing opinions, those opinions are described as beliefs, even the negative ones.

 

Should someone then produce facts that prove the opinion to to be a fact, then it is no longer an opinion.

It then becomes a fact that they are aware of.

 

I would argue that virtually everyone would accept the above as simple & straightforward commonsense.

 

There are of course people who wish to argue for the sake of argument, & will come up with some esoteric point obtained from their in depth study of Epistemology.

 

The point these people need to take on board is that no one, other than their own little group, give a rats derriere regarding definitions that are not in common use. The purpose of language is to communicate & if you cannot make yourself understood by an average person & seek to attempt to appear intellectual by dissecting every nuance of commonly used words, then you tend to end up giving the opposite, needy impression.

 

Common usage outranks pedantry. There is nothing you can do about it. It is in fact what makes English such a great language, it's a living , changing thing.

 

Attempting to set yourself up as an English version of the Academie Francaise in order to preserve the language in aspic is doomed to failure.

 

As an example of change, the word 'Awful' used to mean 'full of awe' & is far more discriptive in it's original usage, didn't stop the change of use though.

 

Mind you, as I keep saying, free country thus far, knock yourself out.

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2013 at 20:19 ----------

 

Then you can't be agnostic, (a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.) This leaves it impossible for you to accept the existence or nature of God.

 

 

 

Its not unreasonable to consider the possibility that an all powerful God would appear to humans in humans form, and to other species in their form.

 

Willing to accept does not prevent me being agnostic. The Oxford English Dictionary definition is 'A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.'

 

The 'whether or not' leaves it open.

 

Your second point would obviously be true as God can do as 'He' wants. Except that I was taught that ' Man was created in the image of God.'

 

In other words He came up with this design & was that chuffed that he decided to create Billions of us. Well, just two to start, but when they turned out to be such a raging success he decided to stick with the program.

[SnailyBoy]

Knock yourself out.

 

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

[angos]

 

Willing to accept does not prevent me being agnostic. The Oxford English Dictionary definition is 'A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.'

 

The 'whether or not' leaves it open.

If you believe that one cannot know whether or not God exists.' then you can never accept that it exists, meaning you are less open minded than an atheist. No one can prove the existence of God to you because your mind is closed the possibility that it can be proven.

 

Your second point would obviously be true as God can do as 'He' wants. Except that I was taught that ' Man was created in the image of God.'

 

In other words He came up with this design & was that chuffed that he decided to create Billions of us. Well, just two to start, but when they turned out to be such a raging success he decided to stick with the program.

 

As an agnostic why would you assume that statement to be correct, simply by accepting it you have acknowledged that something can be known about the nature of God.

 

As you have quoted the Oxford English Dictionary, I will also quote it.

 

Atheist a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

 

Theist belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe:

 

If you believe that God exists then you are a Theist, if you don't have that belief then you are an Atheist.

[mjw47]

If you believe that one cannot know whether or not God exists.' then you can never accept that it exists, meaning you are less open minded than an atheist. No one can prove the existence of God to you because your mind is closed the possibility that it can be proven.

 

 

 

As an agnostic why would assume that statement to be correct, simply by accepting it you have acknowledged that something can be known about the nature of God.

 

As you have quoted the Oxford English Dictionary, I will also quote it.

 

Atheist a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

 

Theist belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe:

 

If you believe that God exists then you are a Theist, if you don't have that belief then you are an Atheist.

 

 

Philosopher William L Rowe defined agnosticism as 'the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not exist.'

 

So it does not claim either way, as to whether there are Gods or no Gods.

 

The position of agnostics is fairly clear. They do not know, & are, unlike some other parties, prepared to admit the fact.

 

Personally I regard it as the only logical position to take because the fact of the matter is that No One knows.

 

Therefore, the only way agnosticism can be proven wrong is if someone actually comes up with proof positive as to the existence or nonexistence of God(s).

 

As agnosticism is about knowledge it would then be prepared to accept the outcome. As indeed would everyone else. Not much choice!

 

Being prepared to accept the possibility of there being a God does not in anyway conflict with being an agnostic. I am equally prepared to accept that there is no God.

 

I don't Know. Which means anything is possible.

 

 

Where did I say that I accepted the statement 'Man was created in the image of God?'

 

I said I was TAUGHT it. I was raised Catholic. Priests, Nuns a Christian Brother & all sorts of Catholic teachers taught me RE.

 

Did you not see the words directly before 'man was created in the image of God'?

 

They were 'one of the first things I remember which started me doubting was the statement.'

 

That would be literally the exact opposite of accept wouldn't it?

[Ryedo40]

This next bit I shall type very slowly in order to give you a chance to comprehend, OK?

 

A person states to you that they have an opinion on a particular subject, they then tell you what that opinion is.

 

You then say to them ' Do you believe that?'

 

They say ' No '.

You then conclude that you must be dealing with a person of limited intellect.

 

Later on another person tells you that they hold an opinion, they then tell you what that opinion is.

 

You say to them 'Do you believe that?'

 

They say 'Yes'.

 

Whether you agree or disagree with their opinion you have to accept that they stand by their opinions & believe in them. They have belief in their opinion. This therefore makes them a 'believer' in their viewpoint. Yes? Simple enough for you to grasp?

 

An opinion unsupported by facts is merely a belief of the person who holds that opinion. There are no facts with regard to the existence, or none existence of God.

 

Right. Well I'm going to try and point out where things may be getting confused.

 

State of being: lack of belief, no belief, without belief

 

Statement of being: I lack belief, I do not believe, I am without belief.

 

In the real world, living my life as someone who does not believe in god or its existence, my state of being is not believing in a god or its existence. I don't think of that topic or anything else related to that topic. The question of god never comes to mind because I am not a believer. God or the topic of god doesn't exist to me. It is not a belief or opinion. It's just not relevant to my daily life.

 

Someone then comes along and asks "do you believe in god?". Obviously, I have to respond. By doing so I'm giving a statement of being: I do not believe.

 

Doing so allows me to express my state of being.

 

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I've had the impression that you've been trying to conflate the two(state of being with statement of being): by claiming atheism is a belief when it is not.

 

Should someone then produce facts that prove the opinion to to be a fact, then it is no longer an opinion.

 

So what. It's irrelevant. What sort of facts would an atheist need for giving a statement of being: I'm an atheist, I do not believe.

 

The atheist isn't giving any opinion on whether god exists or not. The atheist also isn't claiming a god doesn't exist. The atheist is simply stating his or her state of being. That doesn't make them a 'believer'.

 

It's only an opinion when an atheist claims god does not exist. When that happens, the burden of proof is on the atheist. The majority of atheists, from my experience, do not make that claim.

 

There are of course people who wish to argue for the sake of argument, & will come up with some esoteric point obtained from their in depth study of Epistemology.

 

Well, I do think most people who visit this thread have a reasonable understanding of the terms atheist and agnostic. I also think the atheists here have clearly defined these words - and the meaning and usage of the 'a' prefix. This is done for the purpose of communication so that people can understand.

 

Common usage outranks pedantry. There is nothing you can do about it. It is in fact what makes English such a great language, it's a living , changing thing.

 

Common usage just makes it more common. It doesn't necessarily mean the older understanding is no longer in use or dead. Either way, as long as its use is explained, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

Having said that, which words were the ones that upset you? (I can't be bothered to look back).

[angos]

Philosopher William L Rowe defined agnosticism as 'the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not exist.'

 

So it does not claim either way, as to whether there are Gods or no Gods.

 

The position of agnostics is fairly clear. They do not know, & are, unlike some other parties, prepared to admit the fact.

That's right, they do not know and can never know, because they have the belief that its not possible to know.

 

Personally I regard it as the only logical position to take because the fact of the matter is that No One knows.

Its the most illogical position, you don't think it's possible to know anything about God, and you don't know whether or not it exists, which makes your position unalterable.

 

 

 

 

Therefore, the only way agnosticism can be proven wrong is if someone actually comes up with proof positive as to the existence or nonexistence of God(s).

Your stance makes that impossible to prove because any evidence will simply be disregarded.

 

The most logical position is the position we are born into, a lack of belief in god. Atheist.

 

 

 

 

As agnosticism is about knowledge it would then be prepared to accept the outcome. As indeed would everyone else. Not much choice!

It as nothing to do with knowledge, you simply don't believe that God is knowable or provable. The position of someone with a closed mind.

 

 

 

Being prepared to accept the possibility of there being a God does not in anyway conflict with being an agnostic. I am equally prepared to accept that there is no God.

Yet your belief as made it impossible to prove either way, its a very illogical stance.

 

 

I don't Know. Which means anything is possible.

 

Apart from proof that God exists. Agnostic, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

 

 

 

Where did I say that I accepted the statement 'Man was created in the image of God?'

 

If you don't accept it there's little point in quoting it to support your position.

 

I said I was TAUGHT it. I was raised Catholic. Priests, Nuns a Christian Brother & all sorts of Catholic teachers taught me RE.

 

That's not relevant, because your belief is that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God, which means the Priests, Nuns a Christian Brother & all sorts of Catholic teachers must be wrong.

 

Did you not see the words directly before 'man was created in the image of God'?

Yes, and your belief is that they must have been wrong.

 

They were 'one of the first things I remember which started me doubting was the statement.'

 

That would be literally the exact opposite of accept wouldn't it?

 

No, someone that doesn't know whether or not God exists, lacks a belief in God, so is therefor an atheist.

[mjw47]

That's right, they do not know and can never know, because they have the belief that its not possible to know.

 

 

Its the most illogical position, you don't think it's possible to know anything about God, and you don't know whether or not it exists, which makes your position unalterable.

 

 

 

 

Your stance makes that impossible to prove because any evidence will simply be disregarded.

 

The most logical position is the position we are born into, a lack of belief in god. Atheist.

 

 

 

 

It as nothing to do with knowledge, you simply don't believe that God is knowable or provable. The position of someone with a closed mind.

 

 

 

Yet your belief as made it impossible to prove either way, its a very illogical stance.

 

 

 

 

Apart from proof that God exists. Agnostic, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't accept it there's little point in quoting it to support your position.

 

 

 

That's not relevant, because your belief is that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God, which means the Priests, Nuns a Christian Brother & all sorts of Catholic teachers must be wrong.

 

 

Yes, and your belief is that they must have been wrong.

 

 

 

No, someone that doesn't know whether or not God exists, lacks a belief in God, so is therefor an atheist.

 

Your brain does not appear to compute.

 

Agnostics take the view, that given the thousands of years & hundreds of ways that the human race has attempted to come up with an answer, the probability is that we will never know. logical & showing modesty.

 

Agnostics are seeking the truth before believing, they would welcome the truth.

 

The 'position we are born into, a lack of belief? That sentence alone shows your totally & absolute lack of any kind of intelligence on this subject.

 

Virtually every single race, every single civilisation that has ever existed on this planet has had belief in Deities of some form or other. You really are out of your depth here & have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

 

Agnostic from the term Nostic meaning 'Learned' from the Greek

 

It does not exclude the possibility that something may be learned, simply thinks that it is unlikely. As things stand do you think we will know one way or the other in our lifetime?

 

Dear me, you really have no idea do you? For the last time will you pay attention?

 

Agnostics accept that they DON'T KNOW, get it? That means that whilst I doubted what was being taught, it didn't mean I dismissed it completely, it meant that I didn't accept it without question.

 

CANNOT KNOW 'WHETHER OR NOT' THERE IS A GOD.

 

This means that it could go either way, do you understand that?

 

Not Atheist, accept there may be a God.

 

Not theist, accept there may not be a God.

 

It's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.