religion...a waste?

[phreakwars]

^ I agree with the above post.

.

.

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

Of course you agree. You are a sycophant.

Doesn't matter that you think I am a *****... so long as I am a correct *****.

Most simple-minded men do find intelligent women insufferable...

We just find you guys boring.

 

[rizzo]

The question of one's opinion as to whether or not *** exists is not about "Do you believe we can prove it or disprove it?"
The question is "Do you.... or do you not... believe a *** exists?" Proof never comes into the equation... only one's personal opinion.

Belief does not require proof. Opinions do not require proof. Knowledge does. No one asked for anyone's knowledge. All that is asked for is an opinion.

Agnostics are either too apathetic or cowardly to form an opinion on it. Apathy I can respect. In fact.... I am apathetic to a great many things.

Cowardice I can not respect.

Most opinions are based on knowledge. So if you don't have proof one way or the other about something, you don't believe either side.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Doesn't matter that you think I am a *****... so long as I am a correct *****.

We got to come up with a better name for you *******. The term is embraced and rarely is it taken offensively.

Most simple-minded men do find intelligent women insufferable...

No... just harder to ****.

We just find you guys boring.

I can lick my eyebrows.

 

[Crazywumbat]

Since some of you seem to be argueing over a word without comprehending what it means at all....

You do realize that EVERY rational person on this board is agnostic. Infact, virtually everyone you meet throughout any given day is agnostic.

Look at the root word. Gnosis, old greek word for knowledge. Add an A infront of it, and you have A-gnosis, without knowledge. So an agnostic is someone without knowledge of whether or not any ***(s) truely exist.

Now the most fanatical christian can not know if *** exists, nor can the most die hard atheist know he does not. Hence they're both agnostic.

Now for matters of belief, if someone asks you whether or not you believe in *** and you answer that you're agnostic, then you're not answering the question. You either believe in a *** or you don't. Even if you're open minded to the possibility of a ***, but don't subscribe to a particular religion, then you are an atheist. Not agnostic. Atheist.

 

[phreakwars]

Wow, where the **** have YOU been , Wumbat ??

.

.

 

[Phantom]

Since some of you seem to be argueing over a word without comprehending what it means at all....
You do realize that EVERY rational person on this board is agnostic. Infact, virtually everyone you meet throughout any given day is agnostic.

Look at the root word. Gnosis, old greek word for knowledge. Add an A infront of it, and you have A-gnosis, without knowledge. So an agnostic is someone without knowledge of whether or not any ***(s) truely exist.

Now the most fanatical christian can not know if *** exists, nor can the most die hard atheist know he does not. Hence they're both agnostic.

Now for matters of belief, if someone asks you whether or not you believe in *** and you answer that you're agnostic, then you're not answering the question. You either believe in a *** or you don't. Even if you're open minded to the possibility of a ***, but don't subscribe to a particular religion, then you are an atheist. Not agnostic. Atheist.

That is a very interesting perspective. I will start referring to myself as an agnostic from now on. Sure sounds cooler than "Bible Thumper."

Seriously though, great comment.

 

[Crazywumbat]

Wow, where the **** have YOU been , Wumbat ??.

.

Well this semesters been somewhat hectic so I havn't had alotta time to **** around. Last week though, so I figured I'd grace you all with my presence again.

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

Most opinions are based on knowledge. So if you don't have proof one way or the other about something, you don't believe either side.

Opinions aren't based on knowledge... They are based on available evidence.

Are you suggesting that the evidence FOR the notion that the creation story is true and the earth was created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago... is equal to the evidence that the earth has existed millions and millions of years and living creatures evolve?

Because in order to not be able to form an opinion based on the evidence... the "ancient earth / evolution" explaination would have to be backed by no more evidence than the "young earth / supernatural creator" explaination.

If you think they are equally evidenced... allow me to introduce you to 2nd grade science class....

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

Now for matters of belief, if someone asks you whether or not you believe in *** and you answer that you're agnostic, then you're not answering the question. You either believe in a *** or you don't. Even if you're open minded to the possibility of a ***, but don't subscribe to a particular religion, then you are an atheist. Not agnostic. Atheist.

My point exactly. Those who... when asked... claim to be agnostic... are either apathetic or too cowardly to assert an opinion...

Because even though they do not KNOW.. If they are able to read and can think for their selves chances are they DO have an opinion one way or another.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

My point exactly. Those who... when asked... claim to be agnostic... are either apathetic or too cowardly to assert an opinion...
Because even though they do not KNOW.. If they are able to read and can think for their selves chances are they DO have an opinion one way or another.

******* ******* right! Stand for something! **** or get off the pot.

Fence-straddlers remind me of folk who say "I like all kinds of music.".

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

******* ******* right! Stand for something! **** or get off the pot.
Fence-straddlers remind me of folk who say "I like all kinds of music.".

YA!!!

Or people who say I don't care WHERE we go for lunch and then whine about every place you mention... "Oh their food is too expensive... oh I don't like their water... Oh their vegetables are too crisp... Oh I don't like salad... No really.. Where ever you want to go is fine... Oh but not there...."

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

Na...

I like the wait. It makes the experience better... and funnier.

 

[rizzo]

Opinions aren't based on knowledge... They are based on available evidence.
Are you suggesting that the evidence FOR the notion that the creation story is true and the earth was created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago... is equal to the evidence that the earth has existed millions and millions of years and living creatures evolve?

Because in order to not be able to form an opinion based on the evidence... the "ancient earth / evolution" explaination would have to be backed by no more evidence than the "young earth / supernatural creator" explaination.

If you think they are equally evidenced... allow me to introduce you to 2nd grade science class....

I'm not suggesting that the evidence is equal. But thanks for the offer of the 2nd grade lesson.

We are not talking about the earth's history, we are talking about a belief in ***. Some people who believe in *** still believe in evolution. The two are not mutally exclusive. Not all people who believe in *** believe in the Bible, the Torah, or the Qu'ran.

So basically, the agnostics have it right. If opinions are based on available evidence, that is. There is no concrete evidence that *** exists, just as there is none that says he does not.

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

We are not talking about the earth's history, we are talking about a belief in ***. Some people who believe in *** still believe in evolution. The two are not mutally exclusive. Not all people who believe in *** believe in the Bible, the Torah, or the Qu'ran.

We are talking about the forming of an opinion as to whether or not a deity likely created life, etc. When people claim to be "agnostic" as a stance on ***... that is what they are refering to.

If they are not willing to say the evidence is equal for both sides.. it becomes impossible to justify not having an opinion on it.

So basically, the agnostics have it right. If opinions are based on available evidence, that is. There is no concrete evidence that *** exists, just as there is none that says he does not.

There is no such thing as concrete evidence ... you see.. things that are concrete are PROOF... not evidence... you see.

People do have the right to refuse to give an opinion... and the rest of us have the right to call them fence-sitting cowards.

Let freedom ring!

 

[ClassyMissFancy]

So your a game player then.
On the subject of religion;

One would think that ALL women would be against most religions considering most religions put the woman in a subservient role to men.

.

.

.

It doesn't work that way... not for people who truly believe in their deity. There is a difference in feeling cheated by your ***, and not believing your *** exists. If you truly believe in your religion's version of your ***, you will follow the doctrine whether you like it or not... because you don't believe it is from MAN.. you believe it is from ***.

 

[rizzo]

So if there is "evidence" for both sides, but no proof for either, it's cowardly to not form an opinion?

What about a non-theist? One who believes that the question of ***'s existence is meaningless? That the question has no relevance to their lives? Is that fence-sitting too?