Why the divide between Science and Religion... (priest, ritual, moral)

[michel]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

Good, because you cannot even know who authored 2 Timothy. Oh, as a favor, if you insist on shouting, try to avoid shouting nonsense.

I'm not shouting ... it's called 'capitalizing' ... at least in English it is. And as far as who wrote 2 Timothy and Matthew: Paul and Matthew. These people had nothing to hide. Funny they were martyred for writing anonymously.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Where did I claim that I was certain that God does not exist?

Oh, maybe the terms agnostic and non-theist gave you away.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by AV1611

I'm not shouting ... it's called 'capitalizing' ... at least in English it is. And as far as who wrote 2 Timothy and Matthew: Paul and Matthew. These people had nothing to hide. Funny they were martyred for writing anonymously.

It is obvious that you arrive to your conclusions with only anecdotal obeservations and no evidence to support certainty. Most of your statements are inconsistent and incoherent, and I find it very difficult to take much of what you say seriously.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Most of your statements are inconsistent and incoherent, and I find it very difficult to take much of what you say seriously.

Ooooo I think you've made that point quite clear by now.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by AV1611

Oh, maybe the terms agnostic and non-theist gave you away.

Give me the name of an agnostic that believes in God.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Give me the name of an agnostic that believes in God.

I believe ... by definition ... Agnostics are neutral.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by AV1611

I believe ... by definition ... Agnostics are neutral.

But do they believe in God? And if a theist is someone who believes in God, what does that make me, basically?

I do not deny the existence of God, like an Atheist. I do not believe in God either, because there is no objective evidense lending such a belief credibility and certainty.

"b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism." -www.dictionary.com

[JerryL]

Being of 'no religion' I didn't focus on the differences, looking for fault in each religion, trying to validate one or the other. I, instead, saw amazing similarities. A pattern began to emerge. And where there is a consistant pattern, there is truth.

But truth of what? You assume that a similarity points back to a validity in the belief when all it really says is a common source. One possible source would be historic (that there was a real interaction at sime point and the memory of it has passed down), but I don't find that particularly supportable. Far more likely is that people are substantially similar. They have similar needs and wants and similar life-experiences. They are trying to answer the same questions and solve the same problems and there are only so many different ways they are prone to do it.

[JerryL]

I believe ... by definition ... Agnostics are neutral.

a- no or non
gnostic - truth

an agnostic does not believe that they knwo the truth about god. Some believe that the truth is unknown or unknowable, and others believe that they have simply not yet found it themselves.

[michel]

Originally Posted by JerryL

a- no or non
gnostic - truth

an agnostic does not believe that they knwo the truth about god. Some believe that the truth is unknown or unknowable, and others believe that they have simply not yet found it themselves.

And which camp are you in? Because you seem to "know" a lot about what my Bible shouldn't say, while all the time hinding behind a label of neutrality.