Religious Inconsistencies

[Stone]

.................

That's why I am an Agnostic Athiest. ...................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
excerpt>

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
excerpt>

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

--------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_Atheist
excerpt>

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

You have to ask that question both ways Merc. "Is there anyone who has actually laid eyes on a god in any form"?

That's why I am an Agnostic Athiest. The evidence of the existence of a deity is zero, but I'm open to evidence.

........................................

Which seems a cop out to me because...... the concept of a supreme being, that exists outside of our reality/physical universe, couldn't be examined in a scientific manner ( empirically ) because science only relates to our reality/physical universe.
John, if God were to approach you ( or anyone ) at this moment and converse with you, how would you prove the event occurred in a manner that would satisfy skeptics, empirically?

Anything you could present empirically would only relate to our reality and it's physical laws. How could evidence be collected under that consideration that 'something' exists outside the realm of our reality------>physical existence?
Essentially, you won't believe what can't be tested, until evidence is generated from a concept that defies leaving evidence.
I sometimes read you as an atheist, sometimes an agnostic......but your position as a combination is difficult to accept logically.

If you believe in a concept ( agnostic atheism ) that can't be executed in the above context, doesn't that produce one hell of an inconsistency in your own beliefs?

 

[Mercury]

You have to ask that question both ways Merc. "Is there anyone who has actually laid eyes on a god in any form"?

This is why I don't trust anyone who says that they "KNOW" what God is or what God wants. This goes back to my thread on "what God is?" which I don't think any single Human has or ever will be able to determine with complete accuracy.

 

[Minor Axis]

Perfectly said ...

I think this is what it all boils down to and that we can all agree on. It is the fanatics and the fundamentalists that ruin everything "sacred" and "holy" that has ever been brought up in the history of man. It is we, "humans", that have brought corruption and "religious inconsistencies" to the "table" over the history of our existence.

Now ... since I have yet to make this determination ... probably due to my own ignorance, is there anyone here that can say, without pause, that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING OF A GOD IN ANY FORM!"???

I can't. There is no evidence for a God with specific attributes nor can it disproven.

You have to ask that question both ways Merc. "Is there anyone who has actually laid eyes on a god in any form"?

That's why I am an Agnostic Athiest. The evidence of the existence of a deity is zero, but I'm open to evidence.

Armadillo ribeyes.....mmmmmm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
excerpt>



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
excerpt>


--------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_Atheist
excerpt>





Which seems a cop out to me because...... the concept of a supreme being, that exists outside of our reality/physical universe, couldn't be examined in a scientific manner ( empirically ) because science only relates to our reality/physical universe.
John, if God were to approach you ( or anyone ) at this moment and converse with you, how would you prove the event occurred in a manner that would satisfy skeptics, empirically?

Anything you could present empirically would only relate to our reality and it's physical laws. How could evidence be collected under that consideration that 'something' exists outside the realm of our reality------>physical existence?
Essentially, you won't believe what can't be tested, until evidence is generated from a concept that defies leaving evidence.
I sometimes read you as an atheist, sometimes an agnostic......but your position as a combination is difficult to accept logically.

If you believe in a concept ( agnostic atheism ) that can't be executed in the above context, doesn't that produce one hell of an inconsistency in your own beliefs?

It's not that difficult of a concept and provides wiggle room in the face of the unknown. What is the inconsistency that concerns you? If someone tells me they are an agnostic atheist, to me it means they do not feel like there is any evidence for God, nor have they had a "God experience", but acknowledge they don't have enough info or experiences, and presumes they are open minded enough to consider any future evidence or significant encounters/perceptions that come their way.

 

[Joe the meek]

If someone tells me they are an agnostic atheist, to me it means they do not feel like there is any evidence for God, nor have they had a "God experience", but acknowledge they don't have enough info or experiences, and presumes they are open minded enough to consider any future evidence or significant encounters/perceptions that come their way.

I'm certain that God smiles upon leaving "evidence" so people can draw a rationale scientific conclusion that he exists.

Just because one person see's something does not mean others see it.

 

[Stone]

........................

It's not that difficult of a concept and provides wiggle room in the face of the unknown. What is the inconsistency that concerns you? If someone tells me they are an agnostic atheist, to me it means they do not feel like there is any evidence for God, nor have they had a "God experience", but acknowledge they don't have enough info or experiences, and presumes they are open minded enough to consider any future evidence or significant encounters/perceptions that come their way.

It's not that difficult of a concept and provides wiggle room in the face of the unknown.

No

What is the inconsistency that concerns you?

It's John's inconsistency, not mine. I have no concerns nor see any to be had by me from my pov.

If someone tells me they are an agnostic atheist, to me it means they do not feel like there is any evidence for God, nor have they had a "God experience", but acknowledge they don't have enough info or experiences, and presumes they are open minded enough to consider any future evidence or significant encounters/perceptions that come their way.

Interesting, but that's the meaning of the term, agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_Atheist

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

And fact to a skeptic involves empirical proofs.
And because empirical proofs can not be generated by anything outside of a testable environment ( like God ) the term is meaningless when someone of an atheist nature claims facts will alter their opinion.

 

[Stone]

I'm certain that God smiles upon leaving "evidence" so people can draw a rationale scientific conclusion that he exists.

Just because one person see's something does not mean others see it.

Sorry.....science doesn't work that way.
A rational scientific conclusion does not/would not involve the untestable, God in this case.

 

[Joe the meek]

Sorry.....science doesn't work that way.
A rational scientific conclusion does not/would not involve the untestable, God in this case.

The word is facetious (per my first sentence you quoted in post #246).

I'm familiar with the seven steps.

 

[Stone]

The word is facetious (per my first sentence you quoted in post #246).

I'm familiar with the seven steps.

Good to know ........:thumbup

 

[Johnfromokc]

:24: :tooth

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Johnfromokc]

This pretty much sums up my rejection of the Abrahamic religions:

 

[Stone]

This pretty much sums up my rejection of the Abrahamic religions:

<yawn>

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Stone]

Bitch, bitch, bitch.......


You need a hobby, John
Gardening can be soothing to the soul.......go kill some weeds.

 

[Johnfromokc]

You need a hobby, John

Seems I'm your hobby Stone. Take your own advice - I'm sure they'll let you pull weeds at your nursing home.

 

[Stone]

Seems I'm your hobby Stone. Take your own advice - I'm sure they'll let you pull weeds at your nursing home.

Seems I'm your hobby Stone.

Not really......I like to have conversations that are challenging...............

Take your own advice

Now that's funny....I was just outside killing off weeds.
Oh, the violence!

I'm sure they'll let you pull weeds at your nursing home.

Really pisses you off to think possibilities of your personal tax dollars supporting me in my retirement, eh?
Life can be so cruel.....
When the time comes, with every weed I pull, I'll think of you and smile
'Johnfromokc works his ass off to keep me in comfort'

Thank you John

 

[Alien Allen]

Really pisses you off to think possibilities of your personal tax dollars supporting me in my retirement, eh?

me too in three years

society has sucked off my tit all these years and now it will be my turn

 

[Stone]

me too in three years

society has sucked off my tit all these years and now it will be my turn

John should do the right thing and get a third part time job....imho ( of course )

 

[Johnfromokc]

You two old farts enjoy your golden geezer years on me.

 

[Alien Allen]

I plan on it John

Just so ya know my very best friend growing up and into my late 40's got sucked in by the dark side

It has been like a kick in the gut for me. While still friends we are not the blood brothers we used to be who confided in everything. He is very close to being a full blown born again. He wants to save me according to a mutual friend... Which he should know is never gonna happen. I never will believe in organized religion. Never. He has lightly tried to convert me but knew enough to not push too hard.