Jump to content

AnonymousAgnostic

Nonbeliever
  • Content Count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About AnonymousAgnostic

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1998

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    Videogames, Anime, Debate, Dungeons and Dragons

Recent Profile Visitors

54 profile views
  1. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    First I'll have to be sure that they're actually news in any important sense of the word, and once I know they mean something I'll do some hard reading! Like I said I'm interested in learning what there is to learn. I gotta know that this counts as something to learn.
  2. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    Ohhhkay. We have a definition problem here. When I use the word "natural," what I mean is "occurs in nature without human interference." It's not a prescription of what's "right" or "should be." Computers are unnatural, and I love the one I'm using. There's nothing wrong with it for being unnatural. As for Random, I'd make kind of a nitpick that it pertains to something being decided purely by chance. Natural laws do have some room for chance, but it's not like anyone thinks every part of the natural world is just the physics equivalent of a casino. So here's my claim. One reason scientists determine what is Natural, (occurring in nature without human interference,) is because design requires intent, and to presuppose intent would be to ignore logical procedure. Something cannot be reasonably considered designed unless we have good reason to believe it was intended, and as of this moment, scientific and philosophical consensus do not support the conclusion that everything we might otherwise call natural is the result of an intelligence. As such, no assumption should be made.
  3. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    I think you might have misunderstood. My claim is that we can't scientifically recognize design by complexity or functionality, because in every other situation, we recognize design by contrasting with nature. As a result, it's currently impossible to assert that the universe Was or Was Not designed. "Our human reason" sounds a bit like "common sense," which in itself isn't an explanation of what your thought process is. It sounds like a reassertion of what you said before. If you can explain your reasoning in more detail, then I'll be able to consider it and address it if need be. "Your human reason is not satisfied with thinking things are by design but would rather have them occurring naturally, but compared to what?" I'm not asserting, "We came from a universe that only came about naturally." In fact, I'm not making a claim on the subject. I have no idea how the universe came about. I'm only saying that your explanation fails to meet the specific kind of evidence required to prove design.
  4. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    "I am persuaded that this person (AA) is not here to learn." I'm disappointed to hear this. I'm here to learn what there is to learn. "His profile reads 'Nonbeliever' and yet passes himself off as an agnostic. He/she obviously knows what 'agnostic' means, and yet parades him/herself off as a Nonbeliever." No, I know exactly what agnostic means. Gnosticism is a knowledge claim; a Gnostic Atheist would claim "No gods exist." A Gnostic Theist would claim "At least one god exists" and probably outline which ones. In contrast, an Agnostic Theist would say "I believe a god exists, but I'm not sure," and an Agnostic Atheist (like myself) would say "I don't believe in any gods, but I'm not sure that none do." I have repeated more times than I care to count that I *DO NOT KNOW IF ANY GODS EXIST*. I am, by definition, an agnostic atheist. However, as the word atheist has false connotations to some people of faith, I chose to abstain from that label. "please at least do some research; because your reasoning and logic is extremely poor -- and almost childish." I haven't said anything to attack your character, please do me the courtesy of sparing me the condescension. Attack my arguments, not me. This bald assertion is unfortunately nasty for how civil things started here between us.
  5. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    Little sidenote: I can't really choose to believe in a claim as big as "God exists" without solid evidence. I'm not trying to be obstinate or anything. And yeah, I agree, there's no way to be sure that God doesn't exist! People who make that claim are doing so thoughtlessly. Thank you, have a good one!
  6. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    "all people maintain a god of some sort" Ohhhhhh. You either have an extremely broad definition of what counts as a god, or you think I'm being insincere. I'm going to try and be as straightforward about this as possible. I don't worship any beings or concepts. I don't yet believe in any supernatural phenomena. I don't commit myself to any other person's morality. I don't think of myself as anything more or less than any other human. So if by your definition I'm still maintaining some sort of god, then I really have no idea what you're talking about. We'll need some more strict definitions before we can keep talking about gods. "It seems you are being obtuse with me... tell me what you think the word god means?" I'm not being deliberately obtuse, we just have vastly different understandings of what certain words mean and how certain concepts work. I'm trying to be as straightforward as possible, and I appreciate you doing the same. As for the word god, I'd define it as A being believed to have superhuman or supernatural powers and who deserves or requires worship. But my definition isn't what we're talking about, is it? I'm interested in what you believe, and I'll talk about the god you believe in so long as you define your terms plainly. "I teach children 8-12 and they all get this … " Your phrasing seems strange to me because I didn't grow up reading scripture or listening to sermons, and because the grammatical structure of that paragraph you typed was... creative. I'm sorry I don't get it, but I can't just Understand Harder. I need you to explain or rephrase before I can address the points you were trying to make. "as long as you refuse to answer questions put to you; your not in dialogue but maintaining a pseudo control of communication... God 'IS' but your not it " I thought your question was rhetorical, so I addressed the argument you seemed to be making between the lines. In addition, your question was a Loaded Question. "... that The Creator has chosen to prove Himself in the things He has made and the Written both of which you reject without examination." I've explained several times now why I reject these arguments. If you'd like to address my reasons, please do so. I don't appreciate you making it out like I'm just shaking my head and saying "nope" every time you present an argument. I'm really trying to consider everything put before me here as deeply as the claims hold, even if in some cases the issues are right on the surface. "It is an empirical system of a pseudo god... where what we have began in is all there is." No, I mean, can you tell me what you think the foundational claims of evolution are? Like, what does the process describe, and what are its supposed mechanisms? I really want to know that you know what evolution is before I actually talk to you in-depth about it.
  7. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    You keep trying to put me in boxes, and it's getting kind of confusing. I set the criteria by which I believe things because these criteria work for my beliefs in every other aspect of my life. In addition, I'm not saying I want God to consider me good. I still don't know if he exists, so I literally can't care what he thinks. I only mean to be good by my own standards and the standards of those around me. But besides all of that, I stand by my point. I believe in humanity's potential.
  8. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    "We make the claim God exist, but it is by faith." This doesn't excuse the logical problem of the burden of proof. "You are not sincere in your inquiry." This is judgmental and false. "I believe you have an ulterior motive to try and damage our faith in God." I know what the Backfire Effect is. If I was trying to convince anyone here of anything, I'd be a lot more clever about it. I really am trying to see if there's merit to your claims. "Logic is not the cause of our belief, logic has no power to destroy it." I'm disappointed that you don't value logic in your beliefs about God. I still don't care about "destroying" anyone's beliefs.
  9. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    Hi again! "The power of gravity has to be the correct amount for things to function and it needs to be stable and constant." If you're talking about the gravitational constant, I agree! For things to be the way they are, gravity has to work a very specific way. "and remember the whole world hangs on nothing in space, and yet it maintains its constant course for night and day, seasons etc." Well, things don't really "hang on nothing" in space. They're pulled by the curvature in space caused by the mass of objects, and as such always have a relative speed to the thing they're orbiting. It's like earth is always falling toward the sun, but missing because it has too high a velocity to the side to actually hit. But yeah I see where you're coming from here! "The correct distance from the sun but not any further either way, too close or too far." Actually, Earth's orbit is elliptical, not circular! So the distance between our farthest and nearest distances from the sun vary by about 3 million miles, or about 2% the total distance on average, which is pretty significant! And as for addressing the sum of your points, it sounds like you're making a fine-tuning argument. It sounds like you're saying: The universe has so many specific physical properties that allow for life to exist that it couldn't have happened by chance, and therefore must have been caused intelligently. I have some objections to this argument. 1) Scientifically, design isn't recognized by complexity or functionality. It's recognized by contrasting the thing in question with what occurs naturally. To argue design from unlikelihood, you'd have to first compare this universe with a different naturally occurring one. Ideally you'd be able to compare with several, or hundreds or thousands before you can make a claim of statistical probability, but even just comparing with one non-designed universe would be an amazing start. 2) If it's possible to prove that the physical constants of our universe are bizarrely unlikely, what that leaves us with is a question. That question being, "Why is the universe so specifically The Way It Is?" And the assertion that it must have been designed that way is as of this moment unfounded, because it operates with the Argument From Ignorance fallacy. "Since we can't answer this question, the explanation must be X." There are other, smaller issues I have with the argument, but these are the most important ones. Thank you!
  10. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    Welp. I guess I won't believe in the god you do, if proof can't be a thing. Thank you for clearing that up!
  11. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    Hi pumpkin. I'm disappointed to see what you've said here, but as some of this is directly about me, I kind of feel the need to respond. "The tragedy in all of this is that he has NO hope at all in his world of "uncertainty" regardless of how he tries to twist the meaning of 'meaning' and 'purpose'." I do have hope in this world, even as I understand it. Also, I'm not deliberately twisting meanings. We have different understandings of certain words and concepts, and I try to be clear with my definitions so that misunderstandings don't happen as often. Please don't tell people I'm being deceptive when I'm not. "What I see here is a plethora of information that should have had some sort of persuasion to anyone who has even a modicum of discernment; however, even after so many pages on this thread . . . he remains unconvinced." I've addressed every point I could, and I've explained exactly why I'm unconvinced by each one. I WANT to know that a loving god exists, but I can't if people use arguments based on faulty evidence or logic. Please don't suggest I'm being obstinate for no good reason. "So it ultimately boils down to whether this man will accept the free invitation of Eternal Life through the eyes of faith, or whether his ego and pride will continue to blind him until he finally meets his maker." Neither ego nor pride have lead to my identity as a skeptic. Please don't attack my character when I'm doing my best. "I can't think of a single atheist who has converted to Christianity as a result of being "proven" to them that the God of the Bible TRULY exists." I'd love to be the first. I really, honestly would. "I TRULY am grieved and saddened (from observing his replies to us) that he will most likely remained unconvinced regardless if FACTS were to be shown to him." I find it curious that you've used the word "if" here. I'm interested in facts, data, and that which can be evaluated, and if my sincere evaluation leads me to the conclusion that God exists, I won't continue to argue otherwise. Please don't tell people I'm dishonest. "FACT: Bible prophecy is irrefutable in that there are several books in the Old Testament which were CLEARLY written and dated long before some of the prophecies had been fulfilled." If it's irrefutable because it's provable, I'd really have appreciated people leading with that somewhere in the first few pages of this forum. I can't overstate how important facts are to me. Please don't tell people my values when you've got them completely wrong. "There are thousands of prophecies that have been fulfilled. A few are: The 70 weeks of Daniel. The Conquest of Alexander the Great (Note: written in 6 century BC by Daniel the prophet; and Zechariah the prophet; circa 520-470 BC.). The Destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (fulfilled 70 AD). Prophesied by Daniel in 538 BC. The Jews who were scattered were regathered back to their homeland, and the rebirth of Israel in 1949 (Note: mentioned in Ezekiel 37)." I'm going to go take a look at these to see what they say and if there's good reason to believe they came to pass, but since you lead with these four, I'm hoping they're your best. If you or anyone else wants to help me find sources on their fulfillment, please feel free to respond with links! "All I can do is pray for this man and hope that God will give him the wisdom and discernment to be willing to come to Him in Faith" I've already explained why I can't rely on faith. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I've got a pretty shoddy memory, but I don't think anyone's directly addressed my reasoning for that. Please, please address the things I'm saying instead of the person you're imagining I am. You've gotten a lot wrong about me in this post you made, and I don't think you're a bad person. I just think you've judged me recklessly. If anyone wants to talk to me in a private chat, I'm cool with that. You too, pumpkin. I think this post is going to be my last one tonight. G'night everyone
  12. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    Okay, so what does any of that have to do with anything? I'm having trouble figuring out what I'm supposed to do with all that.
  13. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    I'm not really liking all this undeserved ad-hominem. I've been nothing but pleasant, and here you are accusing me of intentional dishonesty. But anyway, the dead sea scrolls are interesting in how they change or confirm the consistency of what certain pieces of religious text should say canonically, but they aren't confirmation that events came to pass. Not by themselves, anyway. Do you have anything else I can take a look at?
  14. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    That's an interesting list of bad things that people are responsible for (with maybe like one exception). I still stand by my position on human potential. We're capable of great things. Infant and birthing mortalities have been falling rapidly, Polio and other similar illnesses are almost entirely eradicated, We're making strides to get off-world at an incredible pace, Renewable energy use is globally on the rise, Crops are being made more resistant to the elements and yielding greater returns, Global literacy is on the rise, Technology is continuing to advance, and good people are still doing their best to right wrongs and advance humanity further. I'm not an idiot. I don't think Stuff isn't wack. We live in a dangerous world with bad people and uncertainty around every corner. But we also have a lot of good, and strides are being taken to spread it by good people. I hope I'll be considered among their ranks after all is said and done.
  15. AnonymousAgnostic

    New member!

    "The effort to distinguish of which inanimate object is a fools errand.... and no the logical progression is not non-sequitur in this subject we are on -for evolution makes what can be sensually assessed as god." Distinguishing the inanimate object is extremely important if you're talking about scientific hypotheses on abiogenesis, and if you accuse me of believing that life came from rocks, I'm going to call you on your strawman. In addition, abiogenesis and evolution are separate topics. I support evolution, and have MADE NO CLAIM on abiogenesis. Trying to attack positions I haven't expressed on a topic that isn't evolution won't get us anywhere, and I don't care to talk about it. Also, you have a really weird idea of God if "Evolution makes what can be sensually assessed as god." In response to that second paragraph... You've got a big run-on sentence there in the middle, and some word choices that make it pretty difficult for me to follow your thoughts. I appreciate the attempt to clarify, but I think I might need another go. "If you go into a bakery to buy a battery for your car what kind of success will you have? If look into death to find life the same?" I mean, if the metaphor here is that the universe is the bakery, and workable evidence of God along my standards is the battery, I really feel like an omniscient god would have considered the need ahead of time and started selling batteries. "they themselves are able to make what they think as things that are" I... I really don't know what this sentence means, or even relates to. "so death has a clock and Who started the clock? evolution says death did now how really stupid are those evolutionist _?" Okay... Can you define the theory of evolution for me? I don't think you know what it is, or what it entails. As much specificity as you can muster, if you don't mind!
×