Humans and other animals all have brains that determine how they behave, what they do,...
How do you figure that? You can't prove animals have a soul any more than I can prove people do.
Humans and other animals all have brains that determine how they behave, what they do,...
You don't drift from Atheist to Agnostic. Atheists(99% of them anyway) are already Agnostic.
Theism/Atheism are concerned with Belief.
Gnosticism/Agnosticism are concerned with Knowledge.
So a word game then. Nice. So I can say it simply then. I used to be pretty confident there was no "god" of any kind. Now i'm not so sure. Lets see how you dissect that one and show it to be somehow wrong.
Either position is Agnostic, Knowledge hasn't changed.
True, but I'm not really sure which argument that's supposed to support.............
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.
Theist: In the specific sense, is a person who adheres to a religious doctrine that contains "knowledge" of the nature of a personal God who governs the Universe.
There is nothing agnostic about the position of a theist (Christian, Muslim, Jew, to be specific). All three religions claim to have knowledge.
But you're free to keep playing word games.
Humans and other animals are all the same, all have no magical soul.
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.
Theist: In the specific sense, is a person who adheres to a religious doctrine that contains "knowledge" of the nature of a personal God who governs the Universe.
There is nothing agnostic about the position of a theist (Christian, Muslim, Jew, to be specific). All three religions claim to have knowledge.
But you're free to keep playing word games.
I am not playing Word Games. I addressed Moonbog's position.
You and anybody else is invited to review the definitions offered by Wiktionary, Dictionary.com, Miriam-Webster, and The Oxford dictionary and report where any of them include anything about "knowledge" in their definition of theism.
Point taken.
Thanks.
..and you did say that both positions are "agnostic". That's not true.
This is a desperately irrelevant distinction because this:You're invited to re-read my post -- I didn't define "theism", nor did I state that theism itself is the position of knowledge...
...remains false for the reasons already given.I said that the doctrines theists adhere to claims to have knowledge of the nature of God.
So fucking what? Are all theists either Christian, Muslim or Jewish?I, too, explicitly pointed out that the three main religions claim to have knowledge of the nature of God.
This is a desperately irrelevant distinction because this:
...remains false for the reasons already given.
Ok, so anything contrary to your viewpoint is false.
Gotcha.
These are the "2" positions
1) I used to be pretty confident there was no "god" of any kind.
2) Now i'm not so sure.
Neither claims Belief in god(s), nor Knowledge of god(s).
As a point of fact, anything in contradiction to reality is false.
The theory of continental drift was not accepted for many years. One problem was that a plausible driving force was missing...Other geologists also believed that the evidence that Wegener had provided was not sufficient. It is now accepted that the plates carrying the continents do move across the Earth's surface
But that is absolutely preposterous. Reality is not limited by the things we abstract from it. How in the hell would that even work?This is why you're wrong, and what makes you ultimately foolish. "Reality" is limited by currently available data and undiscovered facts.
Reality never changed. Our ideas about it did. Do you have even the foggiest idea what you're talking about?Continental Drift is a good example of how contemporary "reality" can be replaced by newly-discovered facts, and no longer be considered "reality":
That's what you've argued. You've argued that reality is "limited by currently available facts and data." If that were true, then continental drift could not be true until we collected the facts and data which describe it.Just because evidence of Continental Drift was not yet discovered, that doesn't mean that drift was "false".
But that is absolutely preposterous. Reality is not limited by the things we abstract from it. How in the hell would that even work?
Reality never changed. Our ideas about it did. Do you have even the foggiest idea what you're talking about?
There is only one reality. It is distinct from our ideas about it. The former remains true and real even when our ideas about it change.I said "contemporary reality" (meaning, what's considered reality at the time), and my drift example adequately refuted your subjective view of something contradicting [your] "reality" as being false.
Then you either need to do some serious remedial work on your reading comprehension, or your are confusing someone else's posts with mine.You obviously consider "reality" as how we currently understand that -- that bleeds through nearly all of your posts and THAT'S what I was refuting.
What the fuck does that even mean? Are you drunk?You all have the information you need.
What the fuck does that even mean? Are you drunk?
Continental drift had total basis in reality. We simply had not apprehended reality sufficiently to abstract the idea of continental drift from reality.It simply means that Continental Drift had no real basis in reality when it was theorized, and wast thus considered "pseudoscience" among scientists.
That has nothing to do with reality itself.True, reality doesn't change with our ideas, but without tested ideas, we don't know what's reality and what's not.
No, it wasn't.So for all intents and purposes, Drift was "false".
What would you know about it?That simply means you have all the information needed to take a more humble approach to what's considered "reality".