100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > mykesorrel
|
|
|
“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"”  Spreading the word for Satan, so he can have some of the souls I guess.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Rise of atheism.
|
|
sure, no real scientest would make such a claim but a strong atheist claims that there is no god at all, which makes him/her every bit as delusional, according to psychiatry, as a christian who claims god created everything. Really? Really? A person not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence is delusional, wow. not what i said. i said that a person who CLAIMS that there is no god is delusional just as a person who CLAIMS there is a god is delusional. never said a person who doesn't believe there is a god because there is no evidence is delusional. that person is a weak atheist and does not CLAIM it to be fact as a strong atheist would. I believe there are no pegasi on the face of the planet Earth. There is no evidence of any pegasus anywhere other than ancient myths. Does that make me delusional? If not, why should the argument be any different concerning God? Can you PROVE there is no God? No. There you have it. It is nothing more than your atheist fantasy.  If you claim there is no God without proof then yeah you are delusional. But since I believe in a pantheistic God in which God is thought of as being identical to the sum of all nature then I can in a way prove God by construction. So I CAN prove God (within my view of the matter) - so the pegasi are simple not germane.  Can you PROVE there is no FSM? No. There you have it. It is nothing more than your theistic fantasy. If you claim there is no FSM without proof then yeah you are delusional. I like plugging in values. I don't claim there is no FSM though. Oh so you believe in one, i HUMBLE bow down to a fellow pastafarian. I didn't say I believe in the FSM. I just don't claim that there is no such thin as the FSM. But hold that bowing pose. I think it looks nice as long as you are facing this direction.... Gee you really get LOW... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the stories are not the point, the point is our lives, our purpose, etc,, the 'stories' are another RESOURCE available if people are saying to you that you must believe the 'stories' or go to Hell , you can tell them that this 'christian' said baloney the STORIES are a resource to explain the details of the 'plan' the 'greater purpose', but one need not even read them, let alone believe them in order to be following their details for instance, I have been able to sing from a young age, before ever READING the details of how to do it the same is true of our 'purpose' , the same is true of how we live we can read the instruction manual but we dont have to we can believe everything the instruction manual says or just some of it and still manage to get it 'right' The only problem that i have with that, is the two biggest religions say accept me or perish. It's so cut throat, there is no getting out. In Christianity you go to hell, in Islam the punish for apostasy is death - then hell. To me, an all loving God of the Bible would have simple been like: "I created everything you see, take care of my creation, live a Good life and all who do will be inserted in paradise" and this is why i love this quote: “Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Rise of atheism.
|
|
sure, no real scientest would make such a claim but a strong atheist claims that there is no god at all, which makes him/her every bit as delusional, according to psychiatry, as a christian who claims god created everything. Really? Really? A person not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence is delusional, wow. not what i said. i said that a person who CLAIMS that there is no god is delusional just as a person who CLAIMS there is a god is delusional. never said a person who doesn't believe there is a god because there is no evidence is delusional. that person is a weak atheist and does not CLAIM it to be fact as a strong atheist would. I believe there are no pegasi on the face of the planet Earth. There is no evidence of any pegasus anywhere other than ancient myths. Does that make me delusional? If not, why should the argument be any different concerning God? Can you PROVE there is no God? No. There you have it. It is nothing more than your atheist fantasy. If you claim there is no God without proof then yeah you are delusional. But since I believe in a pantheistic God in which God is thought of as being identical to the sum of all nature then I can in a way prove God by construction. So I CAN prove God (within my view of the matter) - so the pegasi are simple not germane. Can you PROVE there is no FSM? No. There you have it. It is nothing more than your theistic fantasy. If you claim there is no FSM without proof then yeah you are delusional. I like plugging in values. I don't claim there is no FSM though. Oh so you believe in one, i HUMBLE bow down to a fellow pastafarian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Rise of atheism.
|
|
sure, no real scientest would make such a claim but a strong atheist claims that there is no god at all, which makes him/her every bit as delusional, according to psychiatry, as a christian who claims god created everything. Really? Really? A person not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence is delusional, wow. not what i said. i said that a person who CLAIMS that there is no god is delusional just as a person who CLAIMS there is a god is delusional. never said a person who doesn't believe there is a god because there is no evidence is delusional. that person is a weak atheist and does not CLAIM it to be fact as a strong atheist would. I believe there are no pegasi on the face of the planet Earth. There is no evidence of any pegasus anywhere other than ancient myths. Does that make me delusional? If not, why should the argument be any different concerning God? Can you PROVE there is no God? No. There you have it. It is nothing more than your atheist fantasy. If you claim there is no God without proof then yeah you are delusional. But since I believe in a pantheistic God in which God is thought of as being identical to the sum of all nature then I can in a way prove God by construction. So I CAN prove God (within my view of the matter) - so the pegasi are simple not germane. Can you PROVE there is no FSM? No. There you have it. It is nothing more than your theistic fantasy. If you claim there is no FSM without proof then yeah you are delusional. I like plugging in values. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting thread! I find the question difficult to answer because no one has really ever defined "God" to my satisfaction. hell, jeanie, no two folks here can agree on the definition of atheism and agnosticism. lol. ok. In light of past threads, Does anyone else see the ironic humor in witnessing 'agnostics' who cant agree on what they believe?....lol humans, we are indeed in a league all our own,,,lol Do we really need to go there? Especially with all the denominations of Christianity? Lets not. r u missing it? we already DID,, thats whats so hilarious...lol :p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Science and magic
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Sun 07/24/11 10:18 AM
|
|
Science = The knowledge we already have about how some things work. Magick = That which science has not yet explained. Science isn't anywhere near complete. Anyone who claims that it is, is either mistaken or grossly misrepresenting the facts. Science most certainly can't rule out a spiritual realm. If fact, at present many scientists are hypothesizing the existence of dimensions, fields, and even whole universes that we have not yet been able to detect directly. So in that sense scientists themselves are speculating the existence of "spiritual" or "magical" realms*. *Note, a spiritual or magical realm could potentially be nothing more than that which science has yet to observe and detect directly. We already know that science detects the behavior of quantum fields that are not themselves directly detectable. We deduce that they must exist simply because of the effects they have on the physical world that we can detect. However, this fact doesn't send scientists running off to believe in fables of Zeus! The potential existence of a spiritual or magical realm is compatible with all spiritual philosophies and religions. It can't be used to support any one religion or spiritual philosophy over another. You making it seem as if science is this one entity. Science is just a collection of observable, testable applications in an lab or environment that can be provable. You can be a Christian scientist, Muslim scientist, etc. The only probably is when you assert something, without no grounds of evidence and claim it's science (like I.D) when it's not. As far as your question, do scientist believe in Aliens? Who knows? You'd have to literally go down the list and ask each one of them lol. The possibility of them existing is plausible, because we know what the right circumstances we came to being so we shouldn't alienate(pun intended) the idea of aliens existing. Well, because we only be observing the cosmos for aliens for a few years. The time it takes light to hit us from distant galaxies is pretty far, thus even if an advance civilization exited their frequencies probably haven't even hit us yet (from space expands so light traveling from one galaxy to another takes an even longer time). The reason why most scientist disbelieve in God(s) is because of what the traditional since imply them to be. I will use the God of the Bible since that's what I'm more familiar with. First, God represents a male gender (he said so in Genesis) Why he would be male is beyond me. Secondly, the story of creation does not coincide with how the universe was brought to be, God literally created everything within 6 days and rested on the 7th. We know Noah ark is scientifically impossible, Tower of Babel an excuse to understand why different cultures exists and many of the other stories . To have a bias of the Christian God would be favoritism, because then science would have to take into account all the other Gods. There's nothing wrong with someone thinking some kind entity, higher power, or whatever invoked the Big Bang, but the thing is there's no evidence which science is all about and saying "God did it" is just wishful thinking from ignorance of what you cannot understand about nature. Belief in God is what faith is all about, which is all about religion, which is where it needs to stay. Why is it that science have to accept God(s), but you don't see people in Churches pulling out a text book preaching about evolution? Kind of a double standard. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Science and magic
|
|
Science = The knowledge we already have about how some things work. Magick = That which science has not yet explained. Science isn't anywhere near complete. Anyone who claims that it is, is either mistaken or grossly misrepresenting the facts. Science most certainly can't rule out a spiritual realm. If fact, at present many scientists are hypothesizing the existence of dimensions, fields, and even whole universes that we have not yet been able to detect directly. So in that sense scientists themselves are speculating the existence of "spiritual" or "magical" realms*. *Note, a spiritual or magical realm could potentially be nothing more than that which science has yet to observe and detect directly. We already know that science detects the behavior of quantum fields that are not themselves directly detectable. We deduce that they must exist simply because of the effects they have on the physical world that we can detect. However, this fact doesn't send scientists running off to believe in fables of Zeus! The potential existence of a spiritual or magical realm is compatible with all spiritual philosophies and religions. It can't be used to support any one religion or spiritual philosophy over another. You making it seem as if science is this one entity. Science is just a collection of observable, testable applications in an lab or environment that can be provable. You can be a Christian scientist, Muslim scientist, etc. The only probably is when you assert something, without no grounds of evidence and claim it's science (like I.D) when it's not. As far as your question, do scientist believe in Aliens? Who knows? You'd have to literally go down the list and ask each one of them lol. The possibility of them existing is plausible, because we know what the right circumstances we came to being so we shouldn't alienate(pun intended) the idea of aliens existing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting thread! I find the question difficult to answer because no one has really ever defined "God" to my satisfaction. hell, jeanie, no two folks here can agree on the definition of atheism and agnosticism. lol. ok. In light of past threads, Does anyone else see the ironic humor in witnessing 'agnostics' who cant agree on what they believe?....lol humans, we are indeed in a league all our own,,,lol Do we really need to go there? Especially with all the denominations of Christianity? Lets not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 pages of circle-jerking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
first you would be in a spiritual body if it was GOD not your normal one. second demons are posing as aliens third GOD can destroy you like no other so please worship him and only him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Science and magic
|
|
Science is nowhere near knowing everything, there so many things that are unexplained, but i believe there is a being that has all knowledge of it and tends to let little of its knowlegde out, and that is why that being is higer than we humans, there is nothing like fable my friend, there are some scriptures or verses, that when read or performed, they can be used to for the science unexplained, but who has the knowledge of this?.. Its that being that is higer than us.. If you call any of this as being spritual, then ill regard science and inventions as spiritual instruments.... science is a discipline of study with a specific methodology for finding what answers we can find regarding the visible universe. we'll never find all the answers but that is science. majic is little more than slight of hand. tricks that fool the eye. entertaining, for sure, but no answers to be found there. Something we both can agree on. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Science and magic
|
|
Science most certainly can't rule out a spiritual realm. If fact, at present many scientists are hypothesizing the existence of dimensions, fields, and even whole universes that we have not yet been able to detect directly. So in that sense scientists themselves are speculating the existence of "spiritual" or "magical" realms*. Although i'm still an infant in science, i would have to disagree with this a bit. Multiverse in its current form is not widely accepted, not only that, when scientist describe other dimensions it's more so other replicas of this one, not anything spiritual. A lot of science considers it pseudo-science to begin with, some find it to controversial and some do acknowledge it, until there is some testable measures, i won't regard it or discard it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting thread! I find the question difficult to answer because no one has really ever defined "God" to my satisfaction. hell, jeanie, no two folks here can agree on the definition of atheism and agnosticism. lol. Tell me about it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i didn't pick my path, it picked me "IT" picked you?  That sounds really scary. You have no will of your own then? Are you Possessed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Sat 07/23/11 06:10 PM
|
|
Oh for god's sake. If someones says that they are agnostic can't you just accept them on their word? Are you talking about me? When did i say i don't believe he's not agnostic? The whole issue is he's basically stating there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist and why me going from agnosticism to atheism is wrong in a sense (from what i remember). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
perhaps. but you asked for an opinion other than mine on 'strong atheism. but i don't buy the term, 'agnostic atheism'. irregardless, you now have an opinion other than mine regarding 'strong atheism' or 'gnostic atheism' that i well buy off on. that you may not is of course your perogative. i simply provided what you asked for. What you're basically saying accepting Gnostic atheism, but reject agnostic atheism, because it doesn't fit into your criteria of terminology? Gnosticism is the opposite of agnosticism, but you disregard one over the other, huh, what? Wow. i can see that. guess i can't help with de-confusing you without repeating myself. so best we leave it at that. but i will say this. i think of a belief as knowing something is fact or not a fact and not believing is not knowing something is fact or not fact. once more, as an agnostic i can know nothing absolutely other than what i experience myself. if i know it happened because i saw it happen then i suppose you could say i believe it in fact did happen. so in MY mind, knowledge and belief are very closely related. but as for gods, i've no belief or knowledge. can't. So lets break this down. To believe in something: You believe X is a fact or not a fact: So you're saying that theist who believe in a God believe this is a fact or not e.i, Gnostic Theist and agnostic theists. To not believe, is not knowing if x is a fact or not: Continuing, a person who does not believe in God doesn't know if this is a fact or not e.i, Gnostic atheist and agnostic theists. not believing is not knowing something is fact or not fact Are you saying "not believing is knowing or not knowing something as a fact". I'm assuming this is the same meaning. if i know it happened because i saw it happen then i suppose you could say i believe it in fact did happen So do you believe the universe is expanding? Do you believe dinosaurs existed? Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe there are other planets, etc? so in MY mind, knowledge and belief are very closely related. I'm glad you said your mind. but as for gods, i've no belief or knowledge. can't. Let's break down the full dictionary use of it: agnostic ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA –noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. –adjective 3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism. 4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge. Not once does it describe a belief, it claims more than once about knowledge. Now let's use atheists: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- atheist a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Now, this deliberately states a disbelief. Now lets re-quote what you said: i've no belief or knowledge Get my drift? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. this is what I been saying this whole time, smh. and for more than the second time an agnostic believes in nothing whatsoever. nothing can be known absolutely so believing something to be known to exist or not exist is not agnostic in the least Sir, knowledge and belief is two completely different things. Just because someone doesn't have knowledge of Gods doesn't me he doesn't believe or does, that's where atheism and theism comes in. Agnostic is not about belief it's about knowing or not knowing, not believing or disbelieving. ??? you're confusing me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Sat 07/23/11 04:05 PM
|
|
You're making the labeling more than need be, also you making it seem as if agnosticism is the one true position (bringing up weak and strong atheism). Sort of like this kid in my religion class who said "Oh, no, i'm not an atheist [snirk], i'm a agnostic i don't know if God exist or not" and all the theists felt better, pff. Anyway, atheism is merely the *disbelief* in Gods, not the knowledge of knowing for a fact of this disbelief, but the conclusion of no evidence of the latter, period. An agnostic claims no knowledge, period. The knowledge comes from a theist proclaiming "the Abrahamic God exist", my reply "where is your evidence", "you just have to believe" - "well i don't believe your claims", it's as simple as that. well, you're labeling every bit as much as i am saying that "atheism is merely the 'disbelief' in gods.' in fact agnostics don't believe in gods either. indeed we believe nothing but to say atheism is merely the disbelief in god does not aknowledge that a strong atheist not only disbelives in god, he believes strongly in the fact that god does not exist. you can say all day that no atheist would take such a position but i'll say i know many that do. yes, i do think that agnosticism is the one 'true position' on the topic. you may not think it but i see that no human mind is capable of knowing the existence or nonexistence of god, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena. not your's, mine, einstein's, hawking's, the pope's or anybody else's mind is capable of such knowledge. but that's what i THINK, not what i KNOW to be fact. Well that's your personal opinion. Please direct me to an atheist who says he knowledgeable knows factually their is no God, seems like you're more against atheism from all your rants. An atheist is someone who disbelieve in Gods it's that simple and unless you can provide something of the contrary, your input is moot. I can scour the internet or books and not see "Atheism the knowledge of knowing a God doesn't exist" the few Gnostic atheist you bumped into might say that which is rare, but if you want to wholeheartedly believe that, so be it. And what's this "agnostics" don't believe in Gods? really? An agnostic who say they don't believe is an atheist, buddy, agnostic atheist they're not mutual exclusive, for the second time. [edit] corrections on smartphone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Rise of atheism.
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Sat 07/23/11 03:35 PM
|
|
nice way to egg the pudding,,,no mention earlier of it being billed as 'christian' only a prayer day by itself does not violate the constitution if it is 'billed' specifically to one religion, ,that is quite different... Not all religions pray. So it would be favoring those who do. not all religions pray? prayer: A solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship so which religion doesnt allow or have people in it who request help or express thanks to someone or something they worship? ::cough:: Buddism ::cough:: cough; buddhism is not a religion as they worship no deity. cough: FSM bless you, Buddhism is a religion/philosophy because of it's practices, traits it shares with religion and certain denominations of it, whether it fully is a religion or just simply a philosophy is irrelevant. You're preaching to choir on its overall ideology (being atheistic in a sense of not believing in God(s)), but thanks anyway.  actually the buddhists i know claim to be agnostic. agnostics don't believe in a deity either you realize, no? whatever, i won't argue definitions. i, and the courts, see buddhism as a practice in philosophy not a practice in religion. Well i got Buddhist friends who claim they're atheistic, so i guess we have our on friends for our own world view, funny how that works out, hehe. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
