Lets be real, it's "Happy Holidays", most of us couldn't care less about Jesus Christ

[Inactive]

The only way it wouldn't be a massive coincidence is if there are billions of different universes and the majority of them are completely unfunctional in terms of being suitable for life. But if this the the only universe or even just one of a few dozen? Huge coincidence that it just happens to have the proper laws for everything to work out IMO.

It's not a massive coincidence, no matter how many universes there are. We have one example to look at, and these are it's properties. If it had different properties, we wouldn't exist, but other things would. Those things would be perfectly adapted to the peculiarities of the universe from which they arose.

So that life can exist obviously...

1. Why would God want life to exist? 2. Why would those particular conditions have to be met in order for God to create life? If God can exist without time, or causality, and he is omnipotent, surely he can create life which will exist under any set of parameters?

I am a video game Dev, and I make 3D worlds for a living... to me this universe seems blatantly designed for us to "play" in so to speak. The "code" works out perfectly... All the things we need (time, light, gravity, etc) are here.

When you design a video game world, you're designing an imitation of the world humans experience. If you were a bat, light wouldn't be a major consideration in your game. If you were an aquatic creature, gravity wouldn't be such a major consideration. If you were an 8 dimensional space squid, made up of a discontinuous physical structure, whose parts communicated at a distance via information transfer across 7th dimension, or some other bit of gibberish, you'd design a completely different game world.

[Dresta]

God is not part of the life of an agnostic either genius... You don't know you say? You're an agnostic. An atheist rejects the idea that a higher power exists, again just read the definition. And yes you ARE assuming no human has been in contact with a higher power, that is all you can do with that.

This has everything to do with what we BELIEVE and nothing to do with what is fact.

You believe it is impossible for any human to meet God making you an agnostic, and Joe Schmoe believes he saw God when he flat lined in ER so he is gnostic. Which ever one is correct is irrelevant when defining what we belief.

Understand now?

No, because you aren't making any sense. I provided you with the definition, as well as the etymology behind it, and you think you disprove that by what, quoting something random from the internet?

Everybody is agnostic. What is so hard for you to get about that? Agnosticism has to do with KNOWLEDGE, atheism and theism has to do with BELIEF; they are completely different concepts. 'i know' is not the same as 'i believe' and not knowing does not prevent belief. It is called faith for a reason.

Reading your post it is obvious that you have either not comprehended or not read anything i have written in this thread. Go back and try again.

[-p.tiddy-]

No...not "everybody is agnostic"...

Its about what you BELIEVE...not what is FACT

if Joe Schmoe BELIEVES he has personally met God then he is GNOSTIC because he believes he KNOWS God exists... the opposite of AGNOSTIC

if you BELIEVE no one know then you are Agnostic, but not everyone BELIEVES the same as you... Some people out there BELIEVE you can know.

[-p.tiddy-]

Look at this chart Dresta, until it sinks in for you

[Dresta]

You really have gone full ****ing retard now. You can't even stick to your own arguments: you earlier claimed i was an agnostic, yet that stupid chart you are endorsing says quite clearly the view i have been expressing is atheist.

agnostic = without knowledge. Stop with you pathetic mutilating of definitions and childish charts, it's embarrassing. Someone can claim to be a gnostic, yet they have no proof either way - so i can far more easily claim that they're full of shit. Knowledge requires evidence and nobody has any actual evidence; what is so hard for you to understand about this? Are you really that dim?

[ace23]

You really have gone full ****ing retard now. You can't even stick to your own arguments: you earlier claimed i was an agnostic, yet that stupid chart you are endorsing says quite clearly the view i have been expressing is atheist.

agnostic = without knowledge. Stop with you pathetic mutilating of definitions and childish charts, it's embarrassing. Someone can claim to be a gnostic, yet they have no proof either way - so i can far more easily claim that they're full of shit. Knowledge requires evidence and nobody has any actual evidence; what is so hard for you to understand about this? Are you really that dim?

Agnosticism has to do with a lack of belief of knowledge, not actual knowledge. Of course, in reality, no one knows for sure, but people who believe they do reserve the right to not identify as agnostic.

agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

[Dresta]

Agnosticism has to do with a lack of belief of knowledge, not actual knowledge. Of course, in reality, no one knows for sure, but people who believe they do reserve the right to not identify as agnostic.

What a word has become to mean because of its misuse does not necessarily make it valid. Everyone has the right to identify as gnostic if they want, but they are simply deluded, and are in reality agnostic.

Thomas Huxley first used the word and defined it saying: “It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”

My dictionary says: 'a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God'

But that definition carries an inherent contradiction: if someone does not have faith, then they clearly do not believe, and God is not a part of their lives. There simply isn't any middle ground on this issue. You can't kind of believe: you either have faith or you do not.

'do you believe in God'

'i don't know'

[-p.tiddy-]

You really have gone full ****ing retard now. You can't even stick to your own arguments: you earlier claimed i was an agnostic, yet that stupid chart you are endorsing says quite clearly the view i have been expressing is atheist.

agnostic = without knowledge. Stop with you pathetic mutilating of definitions and childish charts, it's embarrassing. Someone can claim to be a gnostic, yet they have no proof either way - so i can far more easily claim that they're full of shit. Knowledge requires evidence and nobody has any actual evidence; what is so hard for you to understand about this? Are you really that dim?

You believe that "no one can know for sure"

That makes you AGNOSTIC

and not everyone believes the same as you do... Some people believe that you CAN know for sure... That makes them GNOSTIC... the opposite of agnostic

This isn't that hard.

[ace23]

What a word has become to mean because of its misuse does not necessarily make it valid. Everyone has the right to identify as gnostic if they want, but they are simply deluded, and are in reality agnostic.

Lol

[tpols]

No...not "everybody is agnostic"...

Its about what you BELIEVE...not what is FACT

if Joe Schmoe BELIEVES he has personally met God then he is GNOSTIC because he believes he KNOWS God exists... the opposite of AGNOSTIC

if you BELIEVE no one know then you are Agnostic, but not everyone BELIEVES the same as you... Some people out there BELIEVE you can know.

Without proof he doesn't know shit lol.. In that case you can literally 'know' anything if you claim to have seen it in a hallucination/dream/etc

[Dresta]

You believe that "no one can know for sure"

That makes you AGNOSTIC

and not everyone believes the same as you do... Some people believe that you CAN know for sure... That makes them GNOSTIC... the opposite of agnostic

This isn't that hard.

Those people are deluded and suffering from a certifiable mental illness. They belong in the category if 'irrational crazy people' and they should really get some help/treatment. And no, i don't believe that no one can know, i know it; the work of David Hume has shown this pretty clearly, so i suggest you read it.

You told me i wasn't an atheist earlier because i was an agnostic so you clearly don't have a ****ing clue what you are talking about. You actually think atheism is a positive assertion and yet you have posted charts saying that it isn't to support your point on another question. You are a walking contradiction with no consistency or understanding, so just shut up.

[-p.tiddy-]

I said if anything you are an agnostic atheist... From the start I said the majority of those who claim to be atheist are actually that

Go back and read if you want...


It's nothing to cry about either, what's wrong with being agnostic? Nothing

[-p.tiddy-]

And whether or not those people are "deluded"or not means nothing in this debate... AGAIN, these are just words to define what people BELIEVE and not what is fact. They may think you are deluded or close minded for thinking no one can know... It doesn't matter.

[Dresta]

I said if anything you are an agnostic atheist... From the start I said the majority of those who claim to be atheist are actually that

Go back and read if you want...


It's nothing to cry about either, what's wrong with being agnostic? Nothing

You said:

Obviously it is your strong assumption that nobody really knows, you are clearly agnostic and not atheist.

Placing agnostic before atheist is a meaningless qualifier. And the word itself is fluffy and pointless: it is the banal affirmation of a undeniable truth. Atheism does not require an extra appendage, because finding no reason to believe in the supernatural is the only thing that is required.