- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Without exception, you should fall in one of the three categories: theists, atheists or agnostics.
If you are a theist, then you believe in a supreme being called God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. In this case, you are a creationist and believe strongly that God created the universe and everything in it, including you and me. In other words, everything in the universe is due to the act of divine.
If you are an atheist, then you believe in evolution that is a process of natural selection and survival the fittest. Thus, you are an evolutionist and believe that the universe and everything in it came about by coincidence. In other words, everything in the universe is due to the act of the blind watchmaker.
And finally, if you are an agnostic, then you don’t know what the hell is going on in this universe. In other words, you are a fence sitter who doesn’t want to bother in thinking about the ancient dilemma of our origins.
The fundamental tool for evolutionists in assessing our origins is science, where for creationists it is religion and faith, a blind act (it’s still an act). Agnostics do not need any tool, as they are mental couch potatoes who do not want to be burden with the responsibility of proof. Both science and religion, as two tools, seek ultimate truth about the origin of the universe. However, agnostics, by not having any tool, do not seek anything. Evolutionists rely on what they deem as scientific proof or evidence. Creationists rely on what they deem as divine revelations and intuitive discoveries. But agnostics don’t have to rely on anything, because they prove nothing. That is why it is easiest to be an agnostic.
Here is one of the most ancient questions: Is there a God? The true answer to the question could be either “yes” or “no”. There is not a third answer, like “I don’t know,” as agnostics tend to reply. This is because “I don’t know” is not a true answer to our question.
The best analogy in this case is that of tossing a coin. If you are asked whether it is going to be “head” or “tails,” then your answer should be “heads” or “tails,” not “I don’t know”. This latter phrase can be a conveniently neutral and meaningless answer to virtually any question.
When you reply “yes, there is a God.” Or “no, there isn’t.” your answer could be either right or wrong, which is how an answer is supposed to be. The phrase “I don’t know” is neither right nor wrong, and that’s why it cannot be considered as an answer to the question of whether or not God exists.
In fact, “I don’t know” is the best excuse for the lazy brains of the agnostics to avoid any thinking and spending any energy regarding the issues of their origins, much less God’s existence.
The agnostics’ argument is based on the assumption that nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God, so why even bother with the problem at all? In response, one could ask the agnostics why no one can prove or disprove God’s existence.
This is where the problem now arises with agnostics. The answers “yes, God exists” and “no God doesn’t exists” are two hypotheses which need either religious or scientific proof and thus easy thinking (as in theism) or hard thinking (as in atheism) to be proven undeniably sometime in the future. But the answer “I don’t know” is not considered a hypothesis by the agnostics, so consequently requires no effort at all to be proven or disproven.
That is how agnostics escape the whole argument lazily, without any real trouble. And that’s why being an agnostic simply means not wanting at all to think. As agnostics avoid any thinking on this topic, I am just wondering if any agnostic will bother to think and develop a counter argument for what I have accused them of, being mental couch potatoes.
http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/agnostic.htm
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat a load of horse droppings. Let's focus on the main statement: " ... if you are an agnostic, then you don’t know what the hell is going on in this universe. In other words, you are a fence sitter who doesn’t want to bother in thinking about the ancient dilemma of our origins." Now, I will certainly not deny that some people who claim to be agnostics are just what is said here: people who don't really want to think about spiritual issues and are happy with the label "agnostic." However, many agnostics are not happy with this mediocre label but simple reject the "proof" that different isms put forth. They simply have not been convinced. These poeple certainly are not happy with not knowing and ussualy are set on a life-long quest for some sort of understanding.
Without exception, you should fall in one of the three categories: theists, atheists or agnostics.
If you are a theist, then you believe in a supreme being called God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. In this case, you ar ...[text shortened]... l couch potatoes.
http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/agnostic.htm
I agree that any use of the term "agnostic" as a belief system or any system of understanding is indeed lazy and a travesty. But don't let a few bad apples spoil the barrel.
... --- ...
Originally posted by thesonofsaulYou call his post a load of horse droppings then proceed to tell him he's mostly right with a few exceptions. Your post equally reaks of dung.
What a load of horse droppings. Let's focus on the main statement: [b]" ... if you are an agnostic, then you don’t know what the hell is going on in this universe. In other words, you are a fence sitter who doesn’t want to bother in thinking about the ancient dilemma of our origins." Now, I will certainly not deny that some people who claim to ...[text shortened]... is indeed lazy and a travesty. But don't let a few bad apples spoil the barrel.
... --- ...[/b]
How is being Agnostic lazy? And how is it a travesty? Agnosticism, for me, is something that has been molded from years of reading on various religions as well as growing up in a dismal Christian setting. I do not simply say I'm agnostic because I can't be bothered to decide for myself what I believe. It is what I believe and it is not something I consider a temporary label until I find something better that comes along.
Oh my Muffy... Where do I even start? Let's see...
"Without exception, you should fall in one of the three categories: theists, atheists or agnostics."
What about deists? And saying that all theists are creationists and all atheists are evolutionists is nonsense. I guess all theists believe in some form of creation of the world by a god, while atheists obviously don't. But many theists *also* believe in evolution, and some atheists don't.
"And finally, if you are an agnostic, then you don't know what the hell is going on in this universe. In other words, you are a fence sitter who doesn't want to bother in thinking about the ancient dilemma of our origins."
Huh? How does not knowing equal not bothering?
"Here is one of the most ancient questions: Is there a God? The true answer to the question could be either "yes" or "no". There is not a third answer, like "I don't know," as agnostics tend to reply. This is because "I don't know" is not a true answer to our question."
It is an honest answer. If I ask you what's the capital of Norway and you have no clue, is it better to answer "Stockholm" or "I don't know"? IMO the best answer if you have no clue would be "I don't know, but I'll try to find out". That's exactly what many agnostics do, and I can't see how that should mean they don't think or bother. OTOH, if your answer is "Stockholm", that would probably mean you don't really bother; you just made up an answer and don't really care whether it's true or not. Or you just claim it *is* true and don't care about reality.
"The best analogy in this case is that of tossing a coin. If you are asked whether it is going to be "head" or "tails," then your answer should be "heads" or "tails," not "I don't know". This latter phrase can be a conveniently neutral and meaningless answer to virtually any question."
To answer "head" or "tails" is just plain stupid. If you want to be more specific than to say "I don't know", you could say "There's a 50% chance that it will be 'head'and a 50% chance that it will be 'tails'".
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by NordlysIt is an honest answer. If I ask you what's the capital of Norway and you have no clue, is it better to answer "Stockholm" or "I don't know"?
Oh my Muffy... Where do I even start? Let's see...
"Without exception, you should fall in one of the three categories: theists, atheists or agnostics."
What about deists? And saying that all theists are creationists and all atheist ...[text shortened]... t it will be 'head'and a 50% chance that it will be 'tails'".
Well if you don't know what the capital of Norway is then you are a Mental Couch Potato.😉
Originally posted by dj2becker"If [the earth] went around the moon, it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or my work." -Sherlock Holmes
[b]It is an honest answer. If I ask you what's the capital of Norway and you have no clue, is it better to answer "Stockholm" or "I don't know"?
Well if you don't know what the capital of Norway is then you are a Mental Couch Potato.😉[/b]
Originally posted by darvlayYou caught me. I started my post a touch harsh. I guess I was upset at the narrow-minded classification. Will you accept me apology?
You call his post a load of horse droppings then proceed to tell him he's mostly right with a few exceptions. Your post equally reaks of dung.
How is being Agnostic lazy? And how is it a travesty? Agnosticism, for me, is something that has been molded from years of reading on various religions as well as growing up in a dismal Christian setting. I do ...[text shortened]... it is not something I consider a temporary label until I find something better that comes along.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by dj2beckerAgnostics... I don't know whether or not they exist😉
Without exception, you should fall in one of the three categories: theists, atheists or agnostics.
If you are a theist, then you believe in a supreme being called God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. In this case, you are a creationist and believe strongly that God created the universe and everything in it, including you and me. In other ...[text shortened]... e accused them of, being mental couch potatoes.
http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/agnostic.htm
Originally posted by dj2beckerThis quote is very telling. Nobody can know the result of a coin toss unless they're rigging the toss. The only correct answer is "I don't know". I have no doubt this guy would be glad to ramble on dogmatically about origin theory, even though he knows full well there's a good chance that he's completely wrong. I find it hard to take such people seriously.
The best analogy in this case is that of tossing a coin. If you are asked whether it is going to be “head” or “tails,” then your answer should be “heads” or “tails,” not “I don’t know”.