All Christians are Agnostics. - Page 2

Peter666 · #11 10-23-2005, 08:13 PM

Idiot.

DougShrapnel · #12 10-23-2005, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That depends completely on the reasonableness of your evidence. It may very well be true (Although while we don't know that Homer existed, we pretty much know Shakespeare existed).

[/ QUOTE ]Ok so it's more likely that God existed than shakespear and homer. But just as likely that Napolean existed. You either know much more about God then everyone else in the world past, present, and future. Or know something about napolean that we don't.

Aytumious · #13 10-23-2005, 11:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Idiot flavored koolaid? Can't say I am surprised.

Peter666 · #14 10-23-2005, 11:14 PM

The point is that there is no direct empirical way of knowing with absolute certainty that any historical figure has existed. They could all just be made up stories or an elaborate hoax. How do you know you are not Truman on the "Truman Show"? We must merely take on faith that our knowledge has drawn the most reasonable conclusion and represents reality. Spending time questioning this ad nauseam would drive a person insane. But then that would also explain many posters here...

Peter666 · #15 10-23-2005, 11:16 PM

We serve it to 2+2 trolls, not to ourselves.

Aytumious · #16 10-23-2005, 11:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that there is no direct empirical way of knowing with absolute certainty that any historical figure has existed. They could all just be made up stories or an elaborate hoax. How do you know you are not Truman on the "Truman Show"? We must merely take on faith that our knowledge has drawn the most reasonable conclusion and represents reality. Spending time questioning this ad nauseam would drive a person insane. But then that would also explain many posters here...

[/ QUOTE ]

To use your rather sloppy wording, there is no direct empirical way of knowing with absolute certainty anything about anything. What is your point?

Peter666 · #17 10-23-2005, 11:23 PM

There is when your senses are immersed in it. You know for certain that SOMETHING is there (even though it may not be the thing you think it is). That is direct knowledge.

#18 10-23-2005, 11:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is when your senses are immersed in it. You know for certain that SOMETHING is there (even though it may not be the thing you think it is). That is direct knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Lestat · #19 10-23-2005, 11:31 PM

The way I break it down is that both atheists and theists have come to form a belief.

Agnositcs have no such limitations.

They recognize the probablity of there being any God as quite low.

They recognize the probability of any one religion being "correct" as even more remote.

They recognize that if there is a creator, he may very well be a disinterested one.

They also don't make the assumption that the existence of a creator doesn't necessarily mean life after death for us.

In other words, agnostics maintain an open mind, while atheists and theists have already formed their beliefs and are not so inclined.

That's my take anyway.

Xhad · #20 10-24-2005, 01:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is when your senses are immersed in it. You know for certain that SOMETHING is there (even though it may not be the thing you think it is). That is direct knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, according to the most hardcore skeptics, you don't know anything with 100% certainty, but you can assign higher probability to some possibilities.

Hell, you'd think a message board about GAMBLING would have produced this point sooner. Maybe God exists and cares if you eat pork on Sundays, and maybe you're going to flop two pair with your 72o after cold-calling four bets, but that doesn't mean you should act on it.