quote:

So you're an ignorant fence sitter

How so? I told you I believe there is a god. Your perception of agnosticism is skewed. I don't have the knowledge to prove or disprove the presence of a god. Therefore, I am agnostic. I am "one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God", to quote the dictionary.

quote:

Something cannot be made out of nothing!

Then how'd God(TM) do it? A paradox. The Church holds that the Universe was a case of creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. Yet if something can't be made from nothing, how'd the Universe happen? God(TM) must be breaking his own rules.

quote:

how does "without knowledge" not make you ignorant?

Do you have the knowledge that there is a god? Does anyone? No. Nobody can prove--without a doubt--that there are any gods. You may assume that there has to be one because of the complexity of the Universe (as do I), but you still haven't any proof. I am indeed ignorant when it comes to divine beings, but then, so are you. Neither of us has that knowledge.

quote:

So, you're just waiting for a convienant time to jump on one of the wagons?

I am waiting for proof. If God(TM) appeared in my bedroom one night and gave me evidence of his existence, then I'd believe. However, he hasn't done such a thing yet, so here I am still skeptical.

quote:

Big Bangs create chaos, not order

Perhaps you didn't know this, but the Universe likes chaos. That's why mixtures happen. And why gases form. Perhaps "ordered" was not the word I was looking for. "Complex" is better. The Universe is too complex to not have a Creator.

quote:

That's makes you one not willing to commit.

If you were given the choice of staying firmly on the ground or trusting your life to a string of questionable strength high above the ground, which would you commit to? Blind faith is a worrisome thing. There is too much to lose. What would happen if I put all my faith in God(TM) only to find out that I've been worshipping the Devil the whole time? I would rather put all my faith in nothing than risk my soul.

quote:

A Christian can exist, because he is simply a follower of God.

You're going in circles. You say that atheists firmly believe that there is no god, and thus a true atheist doesn't exist because one cannot have that absolute knowledge. However, I say that true theists can't exist because, likewise, they cannot have the absolute knowledge that there is a god. How is my statement any different than yours?

There are no knowers in religion. Only believers.

quote:

An atheist cannot exist, for to be one, one must be all knowing. And in that case, the all knowing one would be God. A Christian can exist, because he is simply a follower of God.

I fear you are the one who is wrong here. An atheist is not someone who knows there isn't a God any more than a Christian is someone who knows there is a God. To be an atheist, you must believe that God doesn't exist. You can still be wrong about it, it's a matter of what you think it true, not what others think it true. Because there aren't a couple dozen deities watching us in the sky doesn't mean that the Ancient Greeks did not exist.

"According to George Gallup, the famous statitian, the number of compatible functions performed on a daily basis in the human body, to have been an accident that was formed over millions of years, is mathematically impossible."

Earth has been in existance for 4.6 billion years, roughly. Life has exisited for at least 2 or 3 billion of those years. That gives ample time for humans to evolve. Now, as far as inprobablility goes, considering every possible outcome you have at the beginning of the universe, the chance of things going exactly as they have over the past 13 billion years is also quite unlikely. However, when you're dealing with many possibilities and a long period of time, every single outcome is inprobable. Therefore, something unlikely must happen.

"The missing link in evolution is more like a missing chain. Organs develop at different paces, meaning that they would evolve at different paces. Yet everything in the human body has stayed relatively the same since the beginning of time."

The missing link that enemies of evolutioin so frequently bring up is essentially a myth. We already have sufficient specimens to give us a good idea of human evolution. Anything that we still need to find isn't necessarily "missing", fossils are just very rare. Think of how many lifeforms there are that exisited before us, if fossils formed easily we'd be stepping on our ancestor's skulls left and right. As for the evolution of organ systems, we only have to examine a developing human fetus to have proof of our evolution. As the fetus begins to develop, it is first fishlike (and even has gills [which are not functional and therefore must be there are evidence of gills in the past, i.e. a vestigal structure]), than reptilian, and than mammilian. The fetus undergoes a little slideshow of our evolution. Besides this, humans have numerous vestigal structures, or structures that are evidence of a phylogeny but no longer have any use. Examples of vestigal structures include tonsils, wisdom teeth, the appendix, the tailbone (which still offers minimal support but is evidence of a tail in previous evolutionary stages), and the little pink flap of skin in the corner of the eye, which is the remainder of a third eyelid. These structures are also found in other species, such as tiny spurs on some snakes that show evidence of feet.

"Yet everything in the human body has stayed relatively the same since the beginning of time."

This statement is invalid and blatantly false to anyone who isn't a fundamentalist.

"Now lets take a look at the Big Bang Theory, or the origin of life. Do you think that if you totally cleaned out your garage, and left it for a year, that a new Mercedes would build itself out of nothing? How about 10 years? 20? 100? 10000? Science itself proves that evolution is wrong: Something cannot be made out of nothing!"

That is an excellent point and is one of the laws of thermodynamics. However, we don't know what happened before the big bang. There is a possiblity that there was a universe that exisited before this one that underwent a big crunch, and that the product of the big crunch was another big bang. Since this could have happened an infinite number of times into the past, there is no need for a beginning or a creator. If previous universes aren't the case, than perhaps the laws of physics were created along with the universe, thus meaning that whatever happened during the big bang was exempt from following them.

Stating Charles Darwin and Newton isn't overly credible, they were scientists a long time ago. We have to rewrite the textbooks every couple years, many of the things that the scientists of old said are now known to be false.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
In going off of reactionary's logic, I have concluded that Christians don't exist. Have a nice day all you non-existent Christians.

You're preception of what is correct does not have to be in tune with reality. Imagine you grabbed me by the neck, pushed me up against the wall, and put a knife to my throat. Then you told me to give you all of my money or you'd slit my throat. Would it make any sense if I simply laughed and said, "Ha! I don't believe in knives." Does that make the threat go away? Of course not. Therefore, your can believe all you want in a a certain faith, but that does not seperate you from reality.

quote:

Now, on a more serious note, I term myself an agnostic. Why? Not, as reactionary so erroneously describes it, because I am ignorant about the presence of a god,

So you're an ignorant fence sitter. If you asked me a question, and I said I don't know, I would be considered ignorant on the matter. The same goes for this instance.

quote:

but because one cannot prove nor disprove the presence of said god. It's simply not possible.

I can prove it, without using faith or the Bible. Let me ask you this: If you were walking through a forest and you came across a painting, would you think that it was formed on accident or that someone had made it? Of course, someone had made it, despite the fact that it was made with materials that could be found in the forest. You've never met the painter, but you know he exists from his works. How is the earth different? That's just one instance.

Let's talk evolution.

According to George Gallup, the famous statitian, the number of compatible functions performed on a daily basis in the human body, to have been an accident that was formed over millions of years, is mathematically impossible.
According to Sir Issac Newton, "If I was going on no other information, the thumb is enough to convince me of a Higher Being."
According to Charles Darwin, "My theory was composed as a thoughtless youth. To see the path in which it has taken is incredible. Evolution has become a scientific religion."
The missing link in evolution is more like a missing chain. Organs develop at different paces, meaning that they would evolve at different paces. Yet everything in the human body has stayed relatively the same since the beginning of time.
Now lets take a look at the Big Bang Theory, or the origin of life. Do you think that if you totally cleaned out your garage, and left it for a year, that a new Mercedes would build itself out of nothing? How about 10 years? 20? 100? 10000? Science itself proves that evolution is wrong: Something cannot be made out of nothing!

quote:

A mere human being cannot possess that knowledge. As Ikki said earlier, "agnostic" = "a", meaning "without" + "gnostic", meaning "knowledge". Therefore, agnostic means "without knowledge", thus backing up my definition of agnostic.

Actually, science means knowledge. But, supposing you were correct, how does "without knowledge" not make you ignorant?

quote:

However, I do believe there is a god, but I do not know for sure.

So, you're just waiting for a convienant time to jump on one of the wagons?

quote:

I highly doubt this god is the God(TM) described in the Bible,

"Men will believe anything, as long as it is not in the Bible."
-Neopoleon

quote:

but I do think there's a god of some sort. Where else did the Universe come from? It's too ordered to be random.

Exactly. Big Bangs create chaos, not order. When was the last time a terrorist's bomb created harmony?

quote:

But since I'm an agnostic, who refuses to look for God(TM), my belief in a god is obviously false. But it's not. I have found a god, not by looking in a book (of all things), but in nature. What does that make me? A non-agnostic? A semi-believer? I refuse to be limited by such terms.

That's makes you one not willing to commit.

quote:

In conclusion, reactionary's argument is moot, for if atheists state their non-belief in a god or gods so fervently and are thus called non-existent, so must Christians, who state their belief in God(TM) equally as fervently. Think about that.

Haha. You're wrong here. An atheist cannot exist, for to be one, one must be all knowing. And in that case, the all knowing one would be God. A Christian can exist, because he is simply a follower of God.

I think agnostics should stop fence-sitting and make up their minds already. No one really knows if God exists or not. It may be impossible to know.
I'm going to compare God to big pink rock on the dark side of the moon. No one really knows if it's there, some beleive it is, and others beleive it isn't. Saying "It's impossible to know if the big pink rock is there" is just stating the obvious.

Yeah, I forgot to add that I also call myself a deist. Sorry for any confusion that may or may not have caused.

Clpo, I believe finding God in nature is called deism.

Cool, the God trademark (orginally seen in the hetero thread) has spread to here.

Once again, clpo, I must say that I totally and completely agree with you. I must bow to your sheer brilliance. *Bows*

In going off of reactionary's logic, I have concluded that Christians don't exist. Have a nice day all you non-existent Christians.

Now, on a more serious note, I term myself an agnostic. Why? Not, as reactionary so erroneously describes it, because I am ignorant about the presence of a god, but because one cannot prove nor disprove the presence of said god. It's simply not possible. A mere human being cannot possess that knowledge. As Ikki said earlier, "agnostic" = "a", meaning "without" + "gnostic", meaning "knowledge". Therefore, agnostic means "without knowledge", thus backing up my definition of agnostic.

However, I do believe there is a god, but I do not know for sure. I highly doubt this god is the God(TM) described in the Bible, but I do think there's a god of some sort. Where else did the Universe come from? It's too ordered to be random. But since I'm an agnostic, who refuses to look for God(TM), my belief in a god is obviously false. But it's not. I have found a god, not by looking in a book (of all things), but in nature. What does that make me? A non-agnostic? A semi-believer? I refuse to be limited by such terms.

In conclusion, reactionary's argument is moot, for if atheists state their non-belief in a god or gods so fervently and are thus called non-existent, so must Christians, who state their belief in God(TM) equally as fervently. Think about that.

If I feared a higher power, why would I deny the exisitance of that power, thus screwing myself over in the afterlife?

I don't believe in an afterlife. I don't believe in God. Your rationalization is that I cannot exist, unless you allow for an occaisional abberation.

Whereas I don't believe in God, you don't believe in me. Fair enough.

From The American Heritage Dictionary:

quote:

Atheist:

Noun
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic:

Noun
1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Adjective
1. Relating to or being an agnostic. 2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).
Etymology
a-1 + Gnostic.
Other forms
ag·nos'ti·cal·ly adv.
Word history
An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn*sis,"knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals--"ists," as he called them--who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

Just to dissuade arguments over the meanings of the words.

ItallianStallion gave the correct meaning of agnostic. You just gave a bigoted view.

quote:

Why? Fear. "Atheists" and agnostics fear finding out the truth about God, because that would mean that they would have to admit to a higher power, admitting that they are ultimately responsible to Him. Apparently, nonBelievers refuse to confront such a notion.

And believes refuse to confrot the notion that God may be a work of fiction, so both are in the same crappy boat. I'm Agnostic, and I'm not afraid of the "truth" because I believe that whatever God out there is wise enough to make good judgements about people regardless of race/sexuality/religious belief/political stance/etc, unlike his followers. I think there is a God (or many of them) but I don't think ANY of the meanings given by humanity of what God is is true, because they have all been aiming at an evil God of intolerance and ignorance, a God used as a tool to control and place fear among the masses. "Religion is the cradle of despotism" - Alfonso Donatien Marquis de Sade

Also, you can't claim atheists don't exist because they aren't "all knowing" because you aren't either. And no one has found the "speck of silver in Minnesota".

Just as a point of clarification, I believe that an agnostic is one who believes in a higher power but does not know the form of the power. Perhaps this is due to apathy or confusion, but it should be different than an atheist.

I once heard a very good argument for why true atheism is impossible, yet the reasoning escapes me at this point. Give me some time and I'll try and recollect the argument.

quote:

There is silver in Minnesota", I do not need any knowledge. All I need is to find one speck of silver,

Upon finding that silver you have attained knowledge.

quote:

What I am getting at is that it is impossible to be an atheist (one who knows there is not a God), because a person is not all knowing, therefore, cannot know if there is not a God.

An Athiest would say "I don't beleive in God" just as I would say "I do believe in God". Both are beliefs.

quote:

"Atheists" and agnostics fear finding out the truth about God

I think most Atheists/agnostics have had judgement passed on them under the pretense of God. This causes them to rebell against the source of the judgement. Although the source of this judgement is actually zealous humans, they have been convinced that to beleive in God means that these judgements must be accepted as directives from the Lord almighty. Why are the majority of Atheists liberal? It isn't because liberalism is godless or any crazy thing like that. It hits at one of the core psyche's of liberal vs. conservative. At the extreme of the spectrums liberals react to authority by rebellion against authority and conservatives act by acting within the authority to change it. So when faced with negative judgement by a potential authority figure they rebel and choose not to believe in God. They cop out. It is easy not to believe.