great. if you can prove god, prove god.
fortunately i still form my views without seeking the agreement of others.
i'm not talking about any specific god. i'm talking about the ability to know. agnosticism really has nothing to do with gods or the afterlife. agnosticism has to do with the...
nope. in a letter he wrote in 1950:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works...
i ignored nothing. damn near the entire post addressed your statement that atheists and agnostics tend to tie into each other. are you being ignored when someon disagrees with you? hmmmmm?
is that your argument? is it really? as to why i'm here, i'm here solely for my entertainment and...
claims of truth require proof. they must be substantiated if one is to accept the claim as fact. the person making the claim inherits the burdon to prove/substantiate the claim if he wants to be held as credible. now shall we get past how i define words and return to the subject of the thread?
hypothetical. but the entity has not told anyone has it? oh sure we have testimony where people claim the entity has told them but no entity has ever told me anything. i've always wondered why that is. if this god is as powerful as people claim and if god wants, make that demands, that we...
in order to answer your either or question i'd have to accept that indeed there is a god and then chose whether that god is merely another part of.......etc, or is god a special case. but god, like everything as i see it, is unknowable so there is no way for me to answer your question. like...
of course. my point was not that something proven to be true or false has been proven. my point was that convincing someone that something is true or false is not the same as proving it. christians are convinced that mary was a virgin. but it's never been proven to them.
whoever it was you were talking to, he definitately was not an agnostic. if that is his claim then he does not know the definition of agnotic. an agnostic does not "believe that it is UNKNOWN if any gods exist". an agnostic believes that the human mind is not capable of KNOWING if gods exist. a...
why? because of the definition of agnostic. since nothing is knowable as a pure agnostic like me sees it, god is inherently unknowable. agnosticism has nothing to do with gods or religion. has to do with knowledge in general.
not so. an agnostic does not say, "I don't know", and agnostic says "the human mind cannot know". i have nothing in common with an atheist if you define an atheist as "one who BELIEVES there is no god as does webster. i will submit that neither the agnostic nor atheist believes in god but...
assuming an atheist is one who believes there is no god, as an agnostic i'm no less baffled by the atheist viewpoint than i am about the viewpoint of the god fearing folks.
ah but convincing is not prooving. clareance darrow once said, "i have to proove nothing in a court of law. all i have to do is convince the jury that i'm right". an argument, positive or negative, can convince but never prooves.