Originally posted by VoidSpiritDo you think this description can also be used with regards to believing/not believing in the existence of a talking pancake?
orthodox->deist->agnostic*
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
relevant portion quoted with my personal edit stressed, none of the other descriptions apply.... agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the acceptance that deities either do or do not exist.
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThat may be a distinction without a difference, practically speaking. The question GKR asks can easily be altered as needed.
the term "believe" does not appear in that description.
Edit: Perhaps there are reasons to neither accept that or believe that such a pancake exists.
Originally posted by JS357indeed, the question can be altered. if GKR can present an argument for the existence of a talking pancake, i will consider if there is sufficient rational grounds to justify accepting the idea.
That may be a distinction without a difference, practically speaking. The question GKR asks can easily be altered as needed.
Edit: Perhaps there are reasons to neither accept that or believe that such a pancake exists.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYour whole description was based on the assumption that there are no arguments for the existence or lack of existence of god.
indeed, the question can be altered. if GKR can present an argument for the existence of a talking pancake, i will consider if there is sufficient rational grounds to justify accepting the idea.
I merely replaced the word "God" with "talking pancake". And suddenly I'm required to present arguments. Of course I have none. The question remains though (I'll rephrase, but the question is essentially the same):
Does humanity currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the acceptance that talking pancakes either do or do not exist?
Originally posted by Great King Ratmy description is based on no such assumptions.
Your whole description was based on the assumption that there are no arguments for the existence or lack of existence of god.
I merely replaced the word "God" with "talking pancake". And suddenly I'm required to present arguments. Of course I have none. The question remains though (I'll rephrase, but the question is essentially the same):
you're not required to present any arguments. my reply to JS357 was rhetorical.
Does humanity currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the acceptance that talking pancakes either do or do not exist?
there currently exists sufficient rational grounds to justify the acceptance that pancakes do not talk, unless they happen to be animated pancakes.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
i was raised as a catholic, im not sure i had a choice as nobody asked. my decision that i thought god didnt exist was a gradual thing from the ages of around 8-12 as i began to realize santa, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny didnt exist, god was the next natural progression.
ive always wondered that if god does really exist, did i at some point have the feelings of experiencing god like many of the christians on here talk about. i dont remember feeling any different, if i didnt have these feelings then why not?
Originally posted by stellspalfiesanta does exist. he used to come by my house. i stopped being a "good boy" so he doesn't come by anymore 🙁
i was raised as a catholic, im not sure i had a choice as nobody asked. my decision that i thought god didnt exist was a gradual thing from the ages of around 8-12 as i began to realize santa, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny didnt exist, god was the next natural progression.
ive always wondered that if god does really exist, did i at some point ...[text shortened]... talk about. i dont remember feeling any different, if i didnt have these feelings then why not?
Originally posted by RJHinds"I always thought that speaking in tongues was faked. It sounded like a bunch of gibberish to me and ....
I always thought that speaking in tongues was faked. It sounded like a bunch of gibberish to me and not like a real language, as is told about in the Holy Bible. There are preachers on Television putting on a show by speaking gibberish and no one can tell what they are saying. I am sure God will give them their reward. I have went through very much the s ...[text shortened]... I feel I know much of the truth, not all, and as Jesus would say, "the truth has set me free."
.... I have went "
I have went?
Sure sounds like gibberish to me too! 😛
-m. 😀
