Originally posted by sonhousejust for a dichotomy of agnostic and gnostic.
no apologies needed! If anything, an agnostic gets "pity" from
theists, so vastly uncertain, poor guy. Like I care. One problem
you cannot get around, suppose what you think of as a god is
in fact only a very powerful alien with an attitude problem.
How would you tell the differance? Seems to me just as likely a
possiblity of that then a real god, ...[text shortened]... my heart" kind of crap.
Give me something objective here. How would you know the
differance?
this is Gnostic:
"I will speak to those who know to hear not with the ears of the body but with the ears of the mind. For many have sought after the truth and have not been able to find it; because there has taken hold of them the old leaven of the Pharisees and the scribes of the Law. And the leaven is the errant desire of the angels and the demons and the stars. As for the Pharisees and the scribes, it is they who belong to the archons who have authority over them.."
Originally posted by frogstompand later in the same Gnostic text:
just for a dichotomy of agnostic and gnostic.
this is Gnostic:
"I will speak to those who know to hear not with the ears of the body but with the ears of the mind. For many have sought after the truth and have not been able to find it; because there has taken hold of them the old leaven of the Pharisees and the scribes of the Law. And the leaven ...[text shortened]... Pharisees and the scribes, it is they who belong to the archons who have authority over them.."
"The foolish - thinking in their heart that if they confess, "We are Christians," in word only (but) not with power, while giving themselves over to ignorance, to a human death, not knowing where they are going nor who Christ is, thinking that they will live, when they are (really) in error - hasten towards the principalities and authorities. They fall into their clutches because of the ignorance that is in them. For (if) only words which bear testimony were effecting salvation, the whole world would endure this thing and would be saved. But it is in this way that they drew error to themselves. ...
... (3 lines unrecoverable)
... they do not know that they will destroy themselves. If the Father were to desire a human sacrifice, he would become vainglorious."
Originally posted by frogstompsounds to me like you have a lot of words yourself...and that is all there is.
and later in the same Gnostic text:
"The foolish - thinking in their heart that if they confess, "We are Christians," in word only (but) not with power, while giving themselves over to ignorance, to a human death, not knowing where they are going nor who Christ is, thinking that they will live, when they are (really) in error - hasten towards the ...[text shortened]... troy themselves. If the Father were to desire a human sacrifice, he would become vainglorious."
Originally posted by checkbaiterError is the distortion of the spirit that permeates all living things, the Gnostic quotes I gave were used as reasoning behind the innacuracy of the OT's description of God, later Gnostics viewed the creator god as evil because the creation of matter caused the Error.
Is Error a person or chance?
God to the Gnostic Christians was the Spirit, and the rest of the universe , including man, was part of God.
Originally posted by rwingettI think creation has nothing to do with evolution either, but
Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. They're two completely different subjects. Not all atheists believe in evolution (although there tends to be a very high correlation), and large number of theists do believe in it.
some find that hard to believe. I do agree with you, atheism and
evolution are different subjects, but they do have something to do
with one another depending how both are defined.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseStartgate, episode 1, season 1, through Season 9 on...
no apologies needed! If anything, an agnostic gets "pity" from
theists, so vastly uncertain, poor guy. Like I care. One problem
you cannot get around, suppose what you think of as a god is
in fact only a very powerful alien with an attitude problem.
How would you tell the differance? Seems to me just as likely a
possiblity of that then a real god, ...[text shortened]... my heart" kind of crap.
Give me something objective here. How would you know the
differance?
😲
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe only thing they have to do with one another is that because atheists do not accept supernatural explanations for things, they will give preference to purely naturalistic ones. So atheists will tend to gravitate toward evolution.
I think creation has nothing to do with evolution either, but
some find that hard to believe. I do agree with you, atheism and
evolution are different subjects, but they do have something to do
with one another depending how both are defined.
Kelly
If someone tells you they're an atheist, you can make a good guess that they'll also belief in evolution. But they do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Originally posted by rwingettI agree they do not necessarily go hand in hand.
The only thing they have to do with one another is that because atheists do not accept supernatural explanations for things, they will give preference to purely naturalistic ones. So atheists will tend to gravitate toward evolution.
If someone tells you they're an atheist, you can make a good guess that they'll also belief in evolution. But they do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettInteresting thing about athiests: there may be more to the universe
The only thing they have to do with one another is that because atheists do not accept supernatural explanations for things, they will give preference to purely naturalistic ones. So atheists will tend to gravitate toward evolution.
If someone tells you they're an atheist, you can make a good guess that they'll also belief in evolution. But they do not necessarily go hand in hand.
than can be summed up by our set of forces so far discovered:
Electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravity. It may turn out that other
forces maybe acting across dimensional barriers give rise to what
we would call "supernatural" simply because all of nature has not
been discovered yet. Maybe a million years from now, if science
and the human race survive that long, maybe then we would say
atheists were wrong to deny the possiblilty of, say, telepathy,
or other "supernatural" events.
Originally posted by sonhouseAtheists do not at any time deny the possibility of telepathy or other supernatural events. If you can provide any good evidence that they exist then we will believe in them. Until then...
Interesting thing about athiests: there may be more to the universe
than can be summed up by our set of forces so far discovered:
Electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravity. It may turn out that other
forces maybe acting across dimensional barriers give rise to what
we would call "supernatural" simply because all of nature has not
been discovered yet. Ma ...[text shortened]... heists were wrong to deny the possiblilty of, say, telepathy,
or other "supernatural" events.
Your problem is that you don't know what an atheist is.
Originally posted by rwingettI see the problem being that you might only accept natural (empirical) evidence for the supernatural, which clearly means that there's no way to prove it by your criteria.
Atheists do not at any time deny the possibility of telepathy or other supernatural events. If you can provide any good evidence that they exist then we will believe in them. Until then...
Your problem is that you don't know what an atheist is.
Supernatural in definition being something that cannot be explained by natural science.
Originally posted by rwingettBy your definition of atheist - why would an atheist believe anything given good evidence?
Atheists do not at any time deny the possibility of telepathy or other supernatural events. If you can provide any good evidence that they exist then we will believe in them. Until then...
Your problem is that you don't know what an atheist is.
Originally posted by HalitoseCan you demonstrate the existence of your god by any means whatsoever?
I see the problem being that you might only accept natural (empirical) evidence for the supernatural, which clearly means that there's no way to prove it by your criteria.
Supernatural in definition being something that cannot be explained by natural science.