How did I miss the point when I pointed out that if agnostics want to be left alone then why put themselves in the line of fire by participating in discussions about beliefs? That seems like a paradox to me. You want to discuss things from a pulpit but have not have to answer questions. Talk about arrogance.Agnostics have diamond hard positions, usually centered around being left the fuck alone
BTW, have you ever reviewed the greek to understand what agnostic means? I'll give you a hint. It doesn't mean undecided.
Last edited by FlaGator; 06-20-2008 at 03:50 PM.
The dilemma of Proverbs 26:4-5 comes to mind.
And on the other issue - why does everyoneís reference to GOD have to be Christian to have any validity? Talk about arrogance. Why is it the Jews never try to convert me. Guess how many Hindus have knocked on my front door? My neighbor recently told some JWís that he happened to be a Shintoist and the little old lady in this "Only True Christian" group told him, "Oh, thatís okay dear - we canít all be saved and chosen."
Since the majority of people on this site who are believers tend to be Christian then what do you expect? Why would be be referencing Allah or Brahma or Buddha in a religious discussion. Also the topic of this thread was 'More Hating on Christianity' not more hating on Hinduism or Buddhism.
By the way, I simpy was curious if you knew what the word meant. No reason to be confused unless you are seeking a meaning that doesn't exist.
This one is easy. When I'm at an intersection, I can determine how to navigate it by observing the various elements of it... elements which I could verify scientifically if I chose to.That would make agnostics fence sitters and indecisive. As an agnostic what do you do at intersections? Just sit there considering all the possibilities.
Last edited by The Night Owl; 06-20-2008 at 06:06 PM.
First, you show me where I claimed you were an agnostic. Please copy and paste showing where I stated or implied that you were agnostic. I just asked if you knew what the word meant. Anything else was an erroneous conclusion on your part. I have to ponder your ability to logically draw realistic inferences based on the evidence at hand when you seem to feel that I am calling you an agnostic and I have never said anything that could be even remotely considered doing that. All your conclusions are now suspect.
Last edited by FlaGator; 06-20-2008 at 11:38 PM.
Then I have to ask myself who or what would have done that and a strong logical possibility is a force that existed outside the universe as we know it. This is a universe that is cause and effect based. I guess you would agree with that. Something that exists in this reality can't be unless it has a cause. Walk that backwards and only one of two results can happen. Either reality goes back into infinity or at some point there was an initial cause that itself had no cause. That initial cause would be God. Now if reality stretched back to infinity then you and I would not be here and this moment we are having could never have arrived because there would be an infinite number of moments between now and infinity.
No one can prove on way or the other that God exists (and God wants it that way for now) but we can look at the evidence and come to some possible conclusions. I look at the evidence and weight it and in my scales to leans to the side of God. Apparently your scales are differently calibrated than mine.
OK, I have given you my reasons for the existence of God. Give me your reasons why He does not exist.
Last edited by FlaGator; 06-20-2008 at 11:34 PM.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|