Fed up of non believers

[lilypiglet]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/14/gravitational-waves-big-bang-universe-bicep

 

Monday 4pm, should be interesting, far more interesting than this bloomin' thread.

[skinz]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/14/gravitational-waves-big-bang-universe-bicep

 

Monday 4pm, should be interesting, far more interesting than this bloomin' thread.

 

Thanks for that, and thanks for your time input..it's a honour.

[mjw47]

Depends if you're conducting a census or having a conversation.

 

'Agnostic' is a label, it doesn't tell you anything about what the individual actually believes.

 

Lets take you for example

 

You've said that you don't accept the evidence to justify a belief in god(s).

 

Therefore you have an absence of belief. Which really doesn't make you a 'by the book' agnostic.

 

But hey, you can call yourself what you want. You certainly won't be going to Hell for it.

 

PS

 

You can talk about evidence for non-belief, for most atheists that I've ever spoken to, the lack of evidence is the evidence.

 

What part of 'Neither believes NOR disbelieves' do you find so difficult to understand?

 

Of course I don't believe the evidence to justify a belief in God(s) there is no evidence!

Neither do I accept the evidence for the none existence of God(s) there is no evidence!

 

That is precisely what agnosticism is all about, an admission to the lack of knowledge ( which is true of everyone but not everyone admits it ) not only am I a 'by the book' agnostic, I'm a bleedin poster boy for the book.

 

As to 'the lack of evidence IS the evidence' it's to be hoped that attitude isn't adopted by the Police.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH, hang on a minute, sometimes it is!

[redwhine]

Both are theories.

No. Evolution is an observed fact. Just like gravity. There is also 'the theory of evolution' and 'the theory of gravity'. They are our best explanations of how evolution and gravity work. (Scientific theories.) If you do not believe that gravity is a fact, try stepping off a tall building. (...not recommended!)

 

There is no proof what started evolution.

Are you referring to abiogenesis, and not evolution, here?

[lilypiglet]

Thanks for that, and thanks for your time input..it's a honour.

 

(and a few words to make up the required word count)

[SnailyBoy]

What part of 'Neither believes NOR disbelieves' do you find so difficult to understand?

 

Of course I don't believe the evidence to justify a belief in God(s) there is no evidence!

Neither do I accept the evidence for the none existence of God(s) there is no evidence!

 

That is precisely what agnosticism is all about, an admission to the lack of knowledge ( which is true of everyone but not everyone admits it ) not only am I a 'by the book' agnostic, I'm a bleedin poster boy for the book.

 

As to 'the lack of evidence IS the evidence' it's to be hoped that attitude isn't adopted by the Police.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH, hang on a minute, sometimes it is!

 

Exactly, once again you lack belief based on evidence, so don't fit the agnostic definition. Who cares, well apart from you I guess?

 

If you could get away from providing evidence for a negative, you might see it a little more clearly.

[mjw47]

Exactly, once again you lack belief based on evidence, so don't fit the agnostic definition. Who cares, well apart from you I guess?

 

If you could get away from providing evidence for a negative, you might see it a little more clearly.

 

And if you could extract your head from your arse you would be able to see that you are talking complete and utter nonsense.

 

The description which I have given as to my view matches the definition of agnostic as provided by Thomas Henry Huxley the man who actually invented the word, and is further confirmed by Professor of Philosophy William L Rowe a man who spent his career studying religious theology.

 

The fact that you, and one or two others, are so lacking in any knowledge of your limitations that you choose to argue against men of far superior intellect

not only shows how ridiculous you are, but is also hilariously amusing.

[Ryedo40]

Exactly, once again you lack belief based on evidence, so don't fit the agnostic definition. Who cares, well apart from you I guess?

 

I agree. If the belief in god's existence isn't there - because he lacks knowledge or awareness of god's existence - he is an atheist.

 

If he's saying he believes god exists but doesn't believe god exists - because he lacks knowledge either way - then he's confused.

[mjw47]

I agree. If the belief in god's existence isn't there - because he lacks knowledge or awareness of god's existence - he is an atheist.

 

If he's saying he believes god exists but doesn't believe god exists - because he lacks knowledge either way - then he's confused.

 

Another one! Wonderful!

 

Please explain how being in entire agreement with the man who coined the word agnostic and a man with a Master of Divinity degree who verified the definition of the word agnostic could in any way make me an atheist.

 

Just to clarify, for the terminally thick, my view agrees without reservation with the description agnostic.

 

You are aware of the definition of agnostic yourself aren't you?

 

So explain, please do, how am I an atheist?

[skinz]

How many times has this done full circle?