100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > mykesorrel
|
Topic:
Never a believer...
|
|
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/ Good info. I use to be a lurker on that site, good stuff. I'm entrenched in reddit.com/r/atheism now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Never a believer...
|
|
Also, this is why atheism and agnosticism is not mutually exclusive. You can be agnostic atheist, meaning you don't have knowledge to that Gods exists or not, but because there is no evidence you don't have to "believe" one exist. If you refer to Dawkins scale, i would consider myself a strong 6: i've never agreed with this description. i think 'agnostic atheist' to be a misnomer. as you yourself quoted, agnosticism regards what in unknown AND UNKNOWABLE meaning there can be no evidence. and dawkins has everybody screwed up on these definitions. I find it interesting you're the only person that disagree with this, but to each his own. i do pride myself on my unique perspective on most things. when i begin to agree with everyone else, i'll worry about my sanity. Not suggesting agree with everyone else on something that's improbable, but we both know the agnosticism which deals with knowledge and atheism deals with disbelief. to say that because you don't never know doesn't mean a person have to believe or shouldn't believe, hence where theism and atheism comes in. For instance, if someone asked me if i like to play football and i never played, i can say "i don't know if i would like football or not, but i think i might like it", this is why i say they're not mutually exclusive, i get your point on the misnomer part, but you can't negate the fact that they generally can be attached. My question more so is this, there are people who wholeheartedly believe in God, but don't know for certain one exist. Then there are people who will blow themselves up because they're convinced with a shadow of doubt that there God told them to do so and that it's factually he/she/it exists, whether that is true or not needs to bear some distinction and that is where Gnosticism come in and agnosticism come in. This is why i sometimes get itchy with agnosticism, because if everybody went by the agnostic route nothing can be proven/disprove, so anyone can propose that all the other million Gods exists and i'm sure a lot of people are not agnostic about those Gods, whether you agree with what i said, i think that narrows my view on the topic and i guess we can go back to the OP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Never a believer...
|
|
Also, this is why atheism and agnosticism is not mutually exclusive. You can be agnostic atheist, meaning you don't have knowledge to that Gods exists or not, but because there is no evidence you don't have to "believe" one exist. If you refer to Dawkins scale, i would consider myself a strong 6: i've never agreed with this description. i think 'agnostic atheist' to be a misnomer. as you yourself quoted, agnosticism regards what in unknown AND UNKNOWABLE meaning there can be no evidence. and dawkins has everybody screwed up on these definitions. I find it interesting you're the only person that disagree with this, but to each his own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Never a believer...
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Wed 09/14/11 01:06 AM
|
|
jrbogie seems to be off... 1st he says I am wrong regarding the definitions between the 2 words, which as you've quoted above is the correct version as I know it aswell, or is the dictionary wrong? 2nd he says you've slapped me with the religion book, when all you did was provied a website link? Strange. I requested information on how people can actually be converted or come to realise on their own accord (later in life) about the exsistence of God. Instead we go off talking about Nascar and the other woman gives her opinions about you can't be born again. Nobody has actually given me their own story about finding God. Also try and put across something without capital letters or exclamation marks!!! It's just a civil conversation  Agnosticism is purely about knowledge, if you want to go into semantics this is the breakdown of agnosticism: Agnosticism (from the Greek - a (without) gnosis (knowledge)) is a claim concerning itself with knowledge, or rather, the lack of knowledge. Someone who claims that they are agnostic when it comes to gods is simply stating that they don't know or cannot possibly know. Atheism, as in the prefix a(without) and the suffix theist(Gods) is just as the name implies, someone who doesn't believe in any deities, you can be atheist and still be "spiritual", that's why Buddhism is considered to be atheist. The thing is, most atheists are skeptics, this is what lead to their atheism, so it's kind of ironic to be a skeptic, but say believe in astrology. Also, this is why atheism and agnosticism is not mutually exclusive. You can be agnostic atheist, meaning you don't have knowledge to that Gods exists or not, but because there is no evidence you don't have to "believe" one exist. If you refer to Dawkins scale, i would consider myself a strong 6: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My cousin is a deist and says the same thing. Derp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know that "God" exists because I exist. (and I am pretty certain that you exist also)  That is irrefutable proof!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But Jeanniebean, if you keep posting a silly reference, it makes your point loses credibility, too. Get good references. Seriously! We live in an age where even Russian scientists (if they are real) are able to communicate legitimate findings - the cold war is OVER. Being open minded enough to look at those Wilcox videos is great - but people also have to be open minded enough to realize when it's not credible and move along to real science. I like listening to metaphysical things and there may be others who get something out of it too. This is NOT a science forum anyway. This is a religious forum and it is for discussion. You don't have to agree or even read it. I don't know that those Russian scientists did not do what they say they did. I have an open mind about anything new like that. If you think it is silly, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. What is it that you think my point is anyway? I will tell you. There are other ways to look at how life may have evolved in this universe than the NO DIVINE FOOTPRINT or atheists Darwinian view points. I think the atheists viewpoint is ridiculous. I think the universe is alive and intelligent. I think that since this is the RELIGION FORUM people should stop telling me that I am being silly or unscientific. I believe that scientists of academia don't have all the answers and they are a long way from it when they keep trying to prove there is NO DIVINE INTELLIGENCE behind life in this universe. They should just do their science honestly. Wow horrible retort as usual. let me go step by step, bare with me computer broke. God created Adam and Eve, as Genesis portray, meaning he created man as we are today which evolution objects to. I find it baffling when someone says micro evolution happens all the time, but macro cannot. When did I even reply to your chicken, or duck crap? please cite me. fossils, DNA, etc is evidence for the latter. wow irrefutable proof, wish you had that same logic with whatever God you believe in. So to sum this all up, you would have to witness with your eyes an animal evolving for you to accept it? You ignore all the other evidence? why? Also this circle jerk didn't start until you accused me of deliberately targetting you and again you made accusations I never said, i notice in your earlier response you didn't acknowledge that. You keep saying the "atheist way" is baffling because you want some divine dictator in your life is fine and dandy, but don't sit here saying it like God is the only answer, lets stray away from the arguement of ignorance here. Regardless the central point of the sub forum, the question relates to faith and we're in a religious, so I can ask whatever the hell I want in regards to that, if you want to close your ears and scream lalala that's fine too. I didn't come in here to argue with anyone, if you notice I even said thanks for the responses and seriously thought my post would have just died off. Also if you notice I said from a Deistic stand point evolution could have been invoked by a God, so again you're putting words into my statements, I emphasized Christians because of what Genesis says and what I was told to believe, it was a simple question and I got some answers, was suppose to be as simple as that not all this circle jerk you propose I'm causing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My brain is just bleeding now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
SEEK GOD!
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Sat 09/10/11 12:34 PM
|
|
Again, what does god verbally say to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
SEEK GOD!
|
|
Lots of people are divorced because they never listen to God or even believe He exists in the first place; so they go about using human wisdom in choosing relationships, only to regret later. Now that you once again seek to satisfy that human craving for companionship, I urge you to do it with Wisdom: Seek God! Agreed? wtf, so um what does God tell you? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I totally believe in evolution, but not from an atheist position. Atheist position? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Fri 09/09/11 05:15 PM
|
|
Mass check this out, what i found very interesting is the guy who is catholic i believe, accepts evolution wholeheartedly, but i warn you, your ears may bleed of such nonsense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2f_CZsXbyk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Fri 09/09/11 08:04 AM
|
|
when people say it is "just a theory" that alone tells me they don't know about evolution or a scientific theory. I find it even more ironic considering these are the same people who believe a man in the sky is intervening everything and have zero evidence. I feel if you're going to be a skeptic about evolution, be a skeptic about everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting that the theory of evolution has, itself, evolved and is continuing to do so. Originally, natural selection was the whole ball game. The weaker didn't breed and the stronger did to leave stronger offspring. Nitches were filled. Necks grew to reach higher branches, etc. The whole theory could be described as "survival of the fittest" as a form of "natural selection". There are semantics involved now with the definition of natural selection. Some, like me, think that if you breed great danes to the point where they look like chihuahuas, natural selection was not involved so evolution was not involved. It is simply an experiment by man using biology as a tool. Evolution is also changes that were NOT caused by "natural selection", the changes were just random. Radiation and other factors cause a constant change in genes that can pass traits on to the new generation also. Molecular biologists have stolen the show in recent times to show the constant changes that have occurred in the human genome due to this effect. There are some posts here that negate inter species breeding as a form of evolution. However, with the recent ability to quickly analyze the genome of a species, some surprising points have been discovered. Modern humans are the result of interbreeding with other species long ago. Depending upon where your recent ancestors are from, you have a percentage of genes from other hominids that were not homo sapiens. These species would include Denisovans and Neanderthals. As far as God is concerned. If you believe in God, what is wrong with believing that scientific evolution is his way of making it happen? Agreed, from a deistic stand point they have all right to say God/Supreme consciousness/whatever started the big bang and everything else came into place, that i will give moderate lead way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Prophecy
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Wed 09/07/11 05:54 AM
|
|
.....God most likely used the Missionary Position I don't care what nobody say, God of the Bible is a G. Not only did he take Joseph shorty, he smashed before he smashed and she was a virgin. What female get to say she cheated on her man with God, if i was Mary i would have said the same thing too, Joseph probably would have beat that a**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Wed 09/07/11 05:49 AM
|
|
Not a compeition, really? What world are you living in? Like i said, it takes nothing read up on it fine, it's to the people WHO DON'T read up on it and reject it is my overall point. Why would you think I "reject" the theory of evolution? I never said I rejected it. I said that I'm sure it has lots of facts and merit. I might not agree with the conclusions some make about it, but I certainly don't reject it. I also don't "reject" God just because I am not a Christian. The only way a person can reject something is if some other person is trying to force it down their throat. The link you posted seems to be some kind of statement, not about evolution itself, but about "ignorance." Therefor what you seem to be implying is that if a person does not learn about (and accept) evolution as an alternative to religion then they are ignorant. What I am saying is that I don't think evolution is complete, and it does not rule out the idea of a creative intelligence in the universe. Basically it does not disprove or compete with the concept of "God." I think that is what so many people think it does. I will say the same to people who offer the Bible as proof of their beliefs or as proof (or evidence) of God. People try to make the theory of evolution and a belief in creationism competitors. Is this the same old argument about whether or not there is a God? That is not going to be proven or dis-proven by a theory of evolution. It is not a choice between believing in God or believing in a theory of evolution. Its just information to be considered. I will consider it for eternity... or until they get it all figured out, which ever comes first. For one i did not say you yourself do not accept evolution, i said people who reject it and don't even research it is being dishonest, so don't put words into my statements. My point in the OP was if evolution by natural selection occurred and we're a common ancestor that evolved from a decedent of great apes, that would cancel out Adam and Eve, and that's the purpose of my OP. It's not about competition on science end, but on a religious end, i only wanted to ask honest Christians how can they reconcile with what i stated above. My link above is referring to your "what if i don't care" mentality. Furthermore if "what if i don't care" is what religious people spew, yet be the same ones fighting to get evolution out of classes is my problem, which seems to flew over your head and also seems you think my statements are a direct attack to you, for what reason i cannot fathom. I never said anything about a belief in God and evolution even in my OP, i stated evolution and scripture, how would they coincide with Christians, so again you're putting words into my statements. Also, curious question, what makes you think evolution is not complete? Have you researched and read up anything that made you feel it is not complete? If you did i would love to see citation, you can even PM me and if you did not, then everything i talked about is my point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Tue 09/06/11 07:23 PM
|
|
Wow at these responses. I'm not going to quote people because i'd be quoting multiple people. I think jrbogie and i forgot who else have it right. Evolution is stated to be factual. It's synonymous with the theory of gravity and the round earth theory. There are array of scientific data that shows evolution, there is countless research papers and books anyone can read. I mean we got a friggin' tail bone for crying out loud. I just find it very interesting that evolution is the only topic some people refuse to research thorough and accept, but everything else they don't care about that doesn't conflict with their religion. If the universe was static, i could see that being a problem, but once scientist propose the big bang was the start of "creation" for the observable universe, religious people was ecstatic. The funny part is this very topic years ago would have got me beheaded, we as a species came a long way, i think that's why i sometimes get mad, because people don't even take the common courtesy to read what scientist put out. To me it's like this, I've read your Bible, now can you pick up a good book on evolution and consider it, or if you don't fine. You would never see a priest preaching about evolution in church, but creationism needs to find itself in science classrooms. OKAY DEEP BREATH. (this not to the people of this forum to be honest, just venting). TL;DR People really need to educate themselves on evolution, church would never teach evolution so science classes shouldn't teach creationism. @Abracadabra Well to be honest i think there is to many paradoxes with a God intervene universe. Also, i think the problem is a lot of people make the word God very ambiguous. One person will say he is the Christian God, someone else will say it is energy and someone else will say it is a supreme consciousness. Everybody want to feel a purpose in life, i mean that's just common human instinct, because we evolved to be very self aware. I mean, you was born into a world you have absolutely no knowledge of, i would want some meaning in my life too. The reason why i reject the Christian God is because the Bible is a horrid depiction of truth and rationalization, among other things and this is why i love this quote (this is not at you just saying): “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts >>>People really need to educate themselves on evolution, ...<<< Why? What gets me is seeing people push their scientific beliefs and theories at people as if there should be a law against not reading and agreeing with them. What if I just don't care?:  -- Why should that bother anyone? Same goes with people who tell me that I should "read the Bible and educate myself." Bah! Neither one of them have anything useful to say to me, both I'm sure have some facts and some truth, neither is the whole truth. Neither is my religion. Neither is necessary for me to live my life better. I don't really care. It is not a competition between evolution ansd creationism as far as I'm concerned. Non of that matters. When they get it all figured out completely, then I might be interested, but none of it rings completely true to me. Evolution does not disprove a creative intelligence and the Bible does not prove there is a creator God Firstly your use of theories and beliefs is conforming it into some kind of religious principle. I will respond like this, education makes everything better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nxbd4cTgQ0 Not a compeition, really? What world are you living in? Like i said, it takes nothing read up on it fine, it's to the people WHO DON'T read up on it and reject it is my overall point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow at these responses. I'm not going to quote people because i'd be quoting multiple people. I think jrbogie and i forgot who else have it right. Evolution is stated to be factual. It's synonymous with the theory of gravity and the round earth theory. There are array of scientific data that shows evolution, there is countless research papers and books anyone can read. I mean we got a friggin' tail bone for crying out loud. I just find it very interesting that evolution is the only topic some people refuse to research thorough and accept, but everything else they don't care about that doesn't conflict with their religion. If the universe was static, i could see that being a problem, but once scientist propose the big bang was the start of "creation" for the observable universe, religious people was ecstatic.
The funny part is this very topic years ago would have got me beheaded, we as a species came a long way, i think that's why i sometimes get mad, because people don't even take the common courtesy to read what scientist put out. To me it's like this, I've read your Bible, now can you pick up a good book on evolution and consider it, or if you don't fine. You would never see a priest preaching about evolution in church, but creationism needs to find itself in science classrooms. OKAY DEEP BREATH. (this not to the people of this forum to be honest, just venting). TL;DR People really need to educate themselves on evolution, church would never teach evolution so science classes shouldn't teach creationism. @Abracadabra Well to be honest i think there is to many paradoxes with a God intervene universe. Also, i think the problem is a lot of people make the word God very ambiguous. One person will say he is the Christian God, someone else will say it is energy and someone else will say it is a supreme consciousness. Everybody want to feel a purpose in life, i mean that's just common human instinct, because we evolved to be very self aware. I mean, you was born into a world you have absolutely no knowledge of, i would want some meaning in my life too. The reason why i reject the Christian God is because the Bible is a horrid depiction of truth and rationalization, among other things and this is why i love this quote (this is not at you just saying): “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christian Attitude
|
|
Ha, this thread is hilarious. Sucks being up this early.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting responses in this thread. I find it very interesting with all the evidence of Dinosaurs, evolution, among other natural phenomena why people don't even for one split second say in their head "maybe i should consider this" (basing this mostly on religious people i encounter), even i use to be a super Christian, but when it came to science and the Bible, i just couldn't believe a lot of the stories which led to my atheism. Appreciate the responses nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
