Creator or Evolution?

ardbeg77

9

2 Nov 2006 - 10:01 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Sort of:

Agnostic = One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing. (OED).

In CB's terms, agnostic is as much a belief as atheism (not that I agree with him )

daringdaphne

9

2 Nov 2006 - 11:26 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

This is an interesting serios. I recently have been studying phi, anyone that has studied pi or phi, will find there is organisation even in the slightest set of figures, this throws new light on the universe and our planet, things unknown to us are organised! Therefore how can one not believe in a god or creator? Answers on a post-card, no kidding , thoughts on this one. see u later.
Daring daphne

Carabosse (e2 Member)

10

2 Nov 2006 - 12:48 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Define "God".

If you can do that I think you will find many people are "atheists" - in relation to the definition!

Extreme example (these days anyway): An elderly chap with a grey beard sitting on cloud dispensing judgement according to your doings, good or bad, on Earth.

Look at many paintings done centuries ago... the above is exactly how God was envisaged.

As to your causation and raison d'être, don't bother looking to manmade science for an answer: it can't provide one. You have to look beyond it, in a non-fanciful non-wishful-thinking way. That's the tough and uncomfortable bit - for atheists and religionists alike.

robporter

9

2 Nov 2006 - 1:18 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: As to your causation and raison d'être

That's rather assuming that we all believe we have a raison d'être, and that our causation is anything more than a fluke.

Rob.

robporter

9

2 Nov 2006 - 1:45 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Please refer to my earlier post on the difference between beliefs and religion.

Rob.

paulcr (e2 Member)

8

2 Nov 2006 - 1:52 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: That's rather assuming that we all believe we have a raison d'être, and that our causation is anything more than a fluke.

Totally agree.


Quote: It is quite legitimate to disbelieve the idea or concept of something without having to strictly define it.

Again, totally agree.


Quote: Manmade science changes its mind every 100, 200 or 1000 years

Absolutely, as we learn more we have to decide that we were wrong in the past based on our knowledge at the time. Thats a good thing imo.


Quote: Please refer to my earlier post on the difference between beliefs and religion.

Did.. good point Rob.

paulcr (e2 Member)

8

2 Nov 2006 - 2:01 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

But I can also say I don't believe in ghosts without having to define what a ghost is. Surely the onus is on the believer to define what/who they believe god to be and for the non-believer to then make his mind up as to whether or not to believe/accept the definition.

roverfoxy9

9

2 Nov 2006 - 2:13 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Did you know the Pope is thinking about letting unchristened babies into heaven soon ? No more waiting in limbo. In fact they think the only true limbo might be the dance now. That's got to be the thin end of the wedge hasn't it - they'll be letting any old riff raff in before too long. There should be somewhere more exclusive that we can aim for, or else there really won't be much point trying very hard to be good at all.