Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[Ryedo40]

It really doesn't matter which of the definitions for agnostic he uses, none of them mean that he can't also be an atheist ( or theist for that matter).

 

I agree mate.

[SnailyBoy]

You are an idiot if you continue to hold to that view but then again it does not surprise me.

 

Read my post at 94 and try to understand it.

 

Snip

 

Looking back I never really believed.

 

That isn't a lack of belief?

[buck]

I could support the claim of a creator, knowing that the only known planet in an immense galaxy has the only form of life that can be supported by temperature, water, and the means of supporting it. There may be others so far away that we don't know about. That this creator knew how to do this would suggest a being with the right enginering skills to do so, and no other animal than man exists with the ways of doing so. So the belief in God being man. Christian belief takes it one step further, making god the father of a virgin's child, putting the son to death to tell the world that death does'nt count as long as you do as he wants you to. Scientists will, of course, ttry to debunk all of this by citing evolution, which is hard to argue against. but it had to start with some kind of a grand plan.

[mjw47]

You are completely obsessed with definitions aren't you?

 

It has been explained to you that the definition given by me of the word describes my view on the subject.

 

Apparently this isn't acceptable to you, there are other definitions and because they are there they must be referenced because of your obsession.

 

You appear to believe that definitions of words are so important that they overrule what is being explained to you. You are a strange person who apparently feels it more important to argue about some pedantic point of semantics rather than pay attention to what is being said and try to comprehend it.

 

Your green apple analogy is completely ridiculous. The word was invented specifically to provide an alternative to Atheist and Theist.

 

Therefore, if you attach either of those words to it you negate the entire reason for the words existence. do you understand?

 

You are contorting the word belief to ludicrous lengths to suit your argument.

 

Belief implies a measure of uncertainty, a belief could be proved wrong.

 

The truth is a certainty, it cannot be proven wrong, therefore to continue to use the term believe once you know the result of something is incorrect.

 

The fact that it may be used and understood despite being pedantically incorrect is something you should give a little thought to, you are obsessional about using words and definitions correctly when it suits your purpose, not so much when it doesn't.

 

Whilst I hesitate to feed your obsession.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oxforddictionaries.com%2Fdefinition%2Fenglish%2Fbelief&ei=Bv63VLrEDsGR7Abg3YG4DA&usg=AFQjCNGlsryLj-UqJ0SPETfBBh6g_qNNFQ

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 18:09 ----------

 

Snip

 

 

 

That isn't a lack of belief?

 

In Christianity yes.

 

But as I said, and you chose to ignore, that doesn't necessarily mean there is no Creator, just not one that we have knowledge of.

[Ryedo40]

I could support the claim of a creator, knowing that the only known planet in an immense galaxy has the only form of life that can be supported by temperature, water, and the means of supporting it.

 

In such an vast universe, one with countless planets - each with their own unique environment and composition - it's likely at least one, the one we know of, would have the correct conditions for life to evolve. And that's where life would be. No reason to invoke a creator.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 18:15 ----------

 

You are completely obsessed with definitions aren't you?

 

It has been explained to you that the definition given by me of the word describes my view on the subject.

 

Apparently this isn't acceptable to you, there are other definitions and because they are there they must be referenced because of your obsession.

 

You appear to believe that definitions of words are so important that they overrule what is being explained to you. You are a strange person who apparently feels it more important to argue about some pedantic point of semantics rather than pay attention to what is being said and try to comprehend it.

 

Your green apple analogy is completely ridiculous. The word was invented specifically to provide an alternative to Atheist and Theist.

 

Therefore, if you attach either of those words to it you negate the entire reason for the words existence. do you understand?

 

You are contorting the word belief to ludicrous lengths to suit your argument.

 

Belief implies a measure of uncertainty, a belief could be proved wrong.

 

The truth is a certainty, it cannot be proven wrong, therefore to continue to use the term believe once you know the result of something is incorrect.

 

The fact that it may be used and understood despite being pedantically incorrect is something you should give a little thought to, you are obsessional about using words and definitions correctly when it suits your purpose, not so much when it doesn't.

 

 

Maybe you should look in the mirror.

[mjw47]

The definition I have is quite different: Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

 

Then you have looked at a part, and only a part of the definition as it applies to me.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fagnostic&ei=BgO4VPavN66t7Aaw5YDwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEtzD4rJ2uFWDrQ93Tj2o0_Cge7Cw

 

Please note number 3 in the definitions.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAgnosticism&ei=BgO4VPavN66t7Aaw5YDwBQ&usg=AFQjCNGfRsjv3T9aLdZ339dud8iSxaho1Q&cad=rja

 

Please read the first paragraph.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 18:29 ----------

 

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 18:15 ----------

 

 

Maybe you should look in the mirror.

 

As perhaps should you.

 

My reference to definitions was in response to the other poster, who I happen to know from experience has a 'thing' about them.

 

Now, would you care to explain why you have highlighted the belief implies a measure of uncertainty, a belief could be proved wrong?

 

As already explained, the only belief that an Agnostic holds - and therefore the only one that could be proved wrong - is the belief that no one will ever know the truth about the existence or non existence of God(s).

 

So what exactly was your point?

[SnailyBoy]

You are completely obsessed with definitions aren't you?

 

It has been explained to you that the definition given by me of the word describes my view on the subject.

 

Apparently this isn't acceptable to you, there are other definitions and because they are there they must be referenced because of your obsession.

 

You appear to believe that definitions of words are so important that they overrule what is being explained to you. You are a strange person who apparently feels it more important to argue about some pedantic point of semantics rather than pay attention to what is being said and try to comprehend it.

 

Your green apple analogy is completely ridiculous. The word was invented specifically to provide an alternative to Atheist and Theist.

 

Therefore, if you attach either of those words to it you negate the entire reason for the words existence. do you understand?

 

You are contorting the word belief to ludicrous lengths to suit your argument.

 

Belief implies a measure of uncertainty, a belief could be proved wrong.

 

The truth is a certainty, it cannot be proven wrong, therefore to continue to use the term believe once you know the result of something is incorrect.

 

The fact that it may be used and understood despite being pedantically incorrect is something you should give a little thought to, you are obsessional about using words and definitions correctly when it suits your purpose, not so much when it doesn't.

 

Whilst I hesitate to feed your obsession.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oxforddictionaries.com%2Fdefinition%2Fenglish%2Fbelief&ei=Bv63VLrEDsGR7Abg3YG4DA&usg=AFQjCNGlsryLj-UqJ0SPETfBBh6g_qNNFQ

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 18:09 ----------

 

 

In Christianity yes.

 

But as I said, and you chose to ignore, that doesn't necessarily mean there is no Creator, just not one that we have knowledge of.

 

So you're an atheist in regard to the Christian god.

[Ryedo40]

Then you have looked at a part, and only a part of the definition as it applies to me.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fagnostic&ei=BgO4VPavN66t7Aaw5YDwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEtzD4rJ2uFWDrQ93Tj2o0_Cge7Cw

 

Please note number 3 in the definitions.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAgnosticism&ei=BgO4VPavN66t7Aaw5YDwBQ&usg=AFQjCNGfRsjv3T9aLdZ339dud8iSxaho1Q&cad=rja

 

Please read the first paragraph.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 18:29 ----------

 

 

As perhaps should you.

 

My reference to definitions was in response to the other poster, who I happen to know from experience has a 'thing' about them.

 

Now, would you care to explain why you have highlighted the belief implies a measure of uncertainty, a belief could be proved wrong?

 

As already explained, the only belief that an Agnostic holds - and therefore the only one that could be proved wrong - is the belief that no one will ever know the truth about the existence or non existence of God(s).

 

So what exactly was your point?

 

I was just randomly bolding text mate. Because everything you were accusing others of being, or of, you were being or doing yourself.

 

And yes, I did read those definitions. It still doesn't mean you aren't an atheist.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Ryedo40

[mjw47]

So you're an atheist in regard to the Christian god.

 

Are Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists or Sikhs Atheists in regard to the Christian God, or is it just that they hold a different viewpoint?

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 18:57 ----------

 

I was just randomly bolding text mate. Because everything you were accusing others of being, or of, you were being or doing yourself.

 

And yes, I did read those definitions. It still doesn't mean you aren't an atheist.

 

When have I accused someone on this thread of being a particular believer?

 

Where did I accuse someone of being an Atheist or a Theist?

 

I am being accused of being an Atheist despite denying it, but where exactly have I tried to tell someone that they were something they say they are not?

 

You on the other hand are trying to do exactly that, aren't you?

 

So where exactly did you leave that mirror.

 

Yes it does mean that I'm not an Atheist it means precisely that. The fact that you appear incapable of comprehension is not my fault.

 

You read the definitions?

 

So what part of 'Holding neither of two opposing positions' did you fail to understand?

 

The two opposing positions are Atheism and Theism, yes, agreed?

 

Therefore, if I hold neither position in what way can I be an Atheist, or a Theist for that matter?

 

Would you care to explain?

 

Whilst your at it, could you also explain why you seem under the impression that a word invented to describe a particular individual point of view cannot be used for that purpose?

[SnailyBoy]

Are Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists or Sikhs Atheists in regard to the Christian God, or is it just that they hold a different viewpoint?

 

Sorry thought we were talking about you.

 

Apart from the Abrahamic god, What other gods don't you believe in?

 

PS. You do know that Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same god, don't you?