|
On April 18 2014 04:18 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. iuno the stories are pretty different. in one of them anilmals are made before humans then a few pages later it says humans were made before animals. seems like they would pretty much have to disregard half of whats written about creation to use the bible as a reference.
Doesn't seem very important which was created first. Are there any contradictions that actually matter between the creation stories? It has been a while since i read the bible.
|
On April 18 2014 04:22 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 04:18 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. iuno the stories are pretty different. in one of them anilmals are made before humans then a few pages later it says humans were made before animals. seems like they would pretty much have to disregard half of whats written about creation to use the bible as a reference. Doesn't seem very important which was created first. Are there any contradictions that actually matter between the creation stories? It has been a while since i read the bible.
First part talks a lot about day/night, sky/earth, etc...
2nd part talks about ribs, snakes, and tree of knowledge.
However, if your a literalist, he is correct that the order that things are presented are "off" but since the scribes did not want to lose accuracy of their source materials they keep those contradictions. The contradictions, in a way, are the main points where most biblical scholars discuss things.
Saturday/Sunday being holy practices sprung forth from the first version of the creation story in the bible. As well as the importance of environmentalism, zoology, botany, and the study of the natural world when God has man name, protect, etc... all the animals and plants.
The 2nd retelling is where we get concepts such as sin, humanization of God, the relationship between life and death and its place in reality, the concepts of punishment and responsibilities. Its also important if you believe in the lineage aspect of "the christ" because its where all lineage starts (although one can make a case for Noah and his family)
Which is why the Catholics simply disregard it as poetic license. Since Catholics lean heavily on ritual and history, they can't philosophically deny either story, so they just take it as being beautiful and inspiring.
But since protestantism believes in personal study, they also tend to cherry pick the most. Choosing to literalize some aspects of the story, while ignoring other parts of the story. Parts like Man being made last in one (suggesting a temporal relationship between animals and man where the earth first springs forth with fauna, flora, and eventually mankind) and man being made first in the other (suggesting a hierarchical importance in the dust molded into God's chosen)
Once again, depends which protestant you meet.
|
On April 18 2014 04:22 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 04:18 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. iuno the stories are pretty different. in one of them anilmals are made before humans then a few pages later it says humans were made before animals. seems like they would pretty much have to disregard half of whats written about creation to use the bible as a reference. Doesn't seem very important which was created first. Are there any contradictions that actually matter between the creation stories? It has been a while since i read the bible.
Seems pretty important what happens first if you want it to be consistent with the observed world and they are pretty much just a list of the order he did things in so if that's not important then i guess none of it is. I don't know what you consider important but sometimes the sky is made of water and humans are made from dust and in the other version they are not. In one man names all animals and in one he doesn't, also man and woman created at the same time versus woman created for man from a piece of man later.
I just wonder how people that use this as a source for their history of the planet deal with disregarding half of it.
|
On April 18 2014 04:38 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 04:22 Crushinator wrote:On April 18 2014 04:18 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. iuno the stories are pretty different. in one of them anilmals are made before humans then a few pages later it says humans were made before animals. seems like they would pretty much have to disregard half of whats written about creation to use the bible as a reference. Doesn't seem very important which was created first. Are there any contradictions that actually matter between the creation stories? It has been a while since i read the bible. Seems pretty important what happens first if you want it to be consistent with the observed world and they are pretty much just a list of the order he did things in so if that's not important then i guess none of it is. I don't know what you consider important but sometimes the sky is made of water and humans are made from dust and in the other version they are not. In one man names all animals and in one he doesn't, also man and woman created at the same time versus woman created for man from a piece of man later. I just wonder how people that use this as a source for their history of the planet deal with disregarding half of it.
Well I have them side by side now, and you are right they do seem very different, and you make a good point.
|
On April 18 2014 04:38 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 04:22 Crushinator wrote:On April 18 2014 04:18 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. iuno the stories are pretty different. in one of them anilmals are made before humans then a few pages later it says humans were made before animals. seems like they would pretty much have to disregard half of whats written about creation to use the bible as a reference. Doesn't seem very important which was created first. Are there any contradictions that actually matter between the creation stories? It has been a while since i read the bible. Seems pretty important what happens first if you want it to be consistent with the observed world and they are pretty much just a list of the order he did things in so if that's not important then i guess none of it is. I don't know what you consider important but sometimes the sky is made of water and humans are made from dust and in the other version they are not. In one man names all animals and in one he doesn't, also man and woman created at the same time versus woman created for man from a piece of man later. I just wonder how people that use this as a source for their history of the planet deal with disregarding half of it.
Which is why the Catholic Church sees it as poetry and only accepting the "God Created the Universe" aspect of it as opposed to the details.
|
On April 18 2014 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 04:38 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:22 Crushinator wrote:On April 18 2014 04:18 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. iuno the stories are pretty different. in one of them anilmals are made before humans then a few pages later it says humans were made before animals. seems like they would pretty much have to disregard half of whats written about creation to use the bible as a reference. Doesn't seem very important which was created first. Are there any contradictions that actually matter between the creation stories? It has been a while since i read the bible. Seems pretty important what happens first if you want it to be consistent with the observed world and they are pretty much just a list of the order he did things in so if that's not important then i guess none of it is. I don't know what you consider important but sometimes the sky is made of water and humans are made from dust and in the other version they are not. In one man names all animals and in one he doesn't, also man and woman created at the same time versus woman created for man from a piece of man later. I just wonder how people that use this as a source for their history of the planet deal with disregarding half of it. Which is why the Catholic Church sees it as poetry and only accepting the "God Created the Universe" aspect of it as opposed to the details.
right, i didn't say any specific religion or w.e. i asked which version "creationists" use. whom i understand are people that believe god created the universe based on the bible. Like people from places like this. which version do they teach and i wonder how can they ignore the other one if they are right beside each other.
|
On April 18 2014 05:28 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 04:38 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:22 Crushinator wrote:On April 18 2014 04:18 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. iuno the stories are pretty different. in one of them anilmals are made before humans then a few pages later it says humans were made before animals. seems like they would pretty much have to disregard half of whats written about creation to use the bible as a reference. Doesn't seem very important which was created first. Are there any contradictions that actually matter between the creation stories? It has been a while since i read the bible. Seems pretty important what happens first if you want it to be consistent with the observed world and they are pretty much just a list of the order he did things in so if that's not important then i guess none of it is. I don't know what you consider important but sometimes the sky is made of water and humans are made from dust and in the other version they are not. In one man names all animals and in one he doesn't, also man and woman created at the same time versus woman created for man from a piece of man later. I just wonder how people that use this as a source for their history of the planet deal with disregarding half of it. Which is why the Catholic Church sees it as poetry and only accepting the "God Created the Universe" aspect of it as opposed to the details. right, i didn't say any specific religion or w.e. i asked which version "creationists" use. whom i understand are people that believe god created the universe based on the bible. Like people from places like this. which version do they teach and i wonder how can they ignore the other one if they are right beside each other.
The answer is a cherry picking of both.
Most do not believe that man and women are equal, but focus purely on the Rib narrative. Most believe the 6 days story, but also the dirt/clay aspect of the 2nd story. Most believe the naming/ruling of nature, but not the protection of nature. etc...
They literally use both and ignoring the most important "creation story," of Noah's ark. they ignore that it almost doesn't matter which version they liked for a "beginning of man" story since it gets reset anyway. They also ignore the tower of babel story that reveals that man is supposed to have lost their ability to communicate/understand each other--and hence prevent them from coalescing a unified creation story. They ignore large tracts of the bible if it doesn't fit an overall dogma. More specifically, Creationist Protestants specifically within the Americas. I'm not aware of what the practices of most protestants are outside of the US, but being that they are not like the catholic church and hence don't form unified theories within themselves (because of the protestant focus of internal and personal study and knowledge) you can't really ask the question of "what do most non-catholic creationist christians believe" because there isn't one. Its just a amalgamation of different theories each one unique to the church/region of that specific protestant subculture.
Within Christianity, there is only 2 main groups that have a dogma that says "this is the truth" and that is Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I don't know much about Eastern Orthodox in their viewpoint of the creation story, but I do know Catholics are taught specifically that Genesis is poetic and not to be taken literally. Protestants, not being a unified body, have no such qualms. Hence some cherry pick, some don't, and some don't even read it. Your asking for a non-existent stance.
|
On April 18 2014 05:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 05:28 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 04:38 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:22 Crushinator wrote:On April 18 2014 04:18 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. iuno the stories are pretty different. in one of them anilmals are made before humans then a few pages later it says humans were made before animals. seems like they would pretty much have to disregard half of whats written about creation to use the bible as a reference. Doesn't seem very important which was created first. Are there any contradictions that actually matter between the creation stories? It has been a while since i read the bible. Seems pretty important what happens first if you want it to be consistent with the observed world and they are pretty much just a list of the order he did things in so if that's not important then i guess none of it is. I don't know what you consider important but sometimes the sky is made of water and humans are made from dust and in the other version they are not. In one man names all animals and in one he doesn't, also man and woman created at the same time versus woman created for man from a piece of man later. I just wonder how people that use this as a source for their history of the planet deal with disregarding half of it. Which is why the Catholic Church sees it as poetry and only accepting the "God Created the Universe" aspect of it as opposed to the details. right, i didn't say any specific religion or w.e. i asked which version "creationists" use. whom i understand are people that believe god created the universe based on the bible. Like people from places like this. which version do they teach and i wonder how can they ignore the other one if they are right beside each other. The answer is a cherry picking of both. Most do not believe that man and women are equal, but focus purely on the Rib narrative. Most believe the 6 days story, but also the dirt/clay aspect of the 2nd story. Most believe the naming/ruling of nature, but not the protection of nature. etc... They literally use both and ignoring the most important "creation story," of Noah's ark. they ignore that it almost doesn't matter which version they liked for a "beginning of man" story since it gets reset anyway. They also ignore the tower of babel story that reveals that man is supposed to have lost their ability to communicate/understand each other--and hence prevent them from coalescing a unified creation story. They ignore large tracts of the bible if it doesn't fit an overall dogma. More specifically, Creationist Protestants specifically within the Americas. I'm not aware of what the practices of most protestants are outside of the US, but being that they are not like the catholic church and hence don't form unified theories within themselves (because of the protestant focus of internal and personal study and knowledge) you can't really ask the question of "what do most non-catholic creationist christians believe" because there isn't one. Its just a amalgamation of different theories each one unique to the church/region of that specific protestant subculture. Within Christianity, there is only 2 main groups that have a dogma that says "this is the truth" and that is Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I don't know much about Eastern Orthodox in their viewpoint of the creation story, but I do know Catholics are taught specifically that Genesis is poetic and not to be taken literally. Protestants, not being a unified body, have no such qualms. Hence some cherry pick, some don't, and some don't even read it. Your asking for a non-existent stance.
thanks that's a good answer. I guess there is no uniform "creationist" text book but now i get that they cherry pick from both and ignore that they are conflicting. In terms of Catholics where is the boundary in the bible that it stops becoming a poem and starts becoming the word of god?
|
On April 18 2014 05:46 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 05:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 05:28 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 04:38 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:22 Crushinator wrote:On April 18 2014 04:18 ComaDose wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. iuno the stories are pretty different. in one of them anilmals are made before humans then a few pages later it says humans were made before animals. seems like they would pretty much have to disregard half of whats written about creation to use the bible as a reference. Doesn't seem very important which was created first. Are there any contradictions that actually matter between the creation stories? It has been a while since i read the bible. Seems pretty important what happens first if you want it to be consistent with the observed world and they are pretty much just a list of the order he did things in so if that's not important then i guess none of it is. I don't know what you consider important but sometimes the sky is made of water and humans are made from dust and in the other version they are not. In one man names all animals and in one he doesn't, also man and woman created at the same time versus woman created for man from a piece of man later. I just wonder how people that use this as a source for their history of the planet deal with disregarding half of it. Which is why the Catholic Church sees it as poetry and only accepting the "God Created the Universe" aspect of it as opposed to the details. right, i didn't say any specific religion or w.e. i asked which version "creationists" use. whom i understand are people that believe god created the universe based on the bible. Like people from places like this. which version do they teach and i wonder how can they ignore the other one if they are right beside each other. The answer is a cherry picking of both. Most do not believe that man and women are equal, but focus purely on the Rib narrative. Most believe the 6 days story, but also the dirt/clay aspect of the 2nd story. Most believe the naming/ruling of nature, but not the protection of nature. etc... They literally use both and ignoring the most important "creation story," of Noah's ark. they ignore that it almost doesn't matter which version they liked for a "beginning of man" story since it gets reset anyway. They also ignore the tower of babel story that reveals that man is supposed to have lost their ability to communicate/understand each other--and hence prevent them from coalescing a unified creation story. They ignore large tracts of the bible if it doesn't fit an overall dogma. More specifically, Creationist Protestants specifically within the Americas. I'm not aware of what the practices of most protestants are outside of the US, but being that they are not like the catholic church and hence don't form unified theories within themselves (because of the protestant focus of internal and personal study and knowledge) you can't really ask the question of "what do most non-catholic creationist christians believe" because there isn't one. Its just a amalgamation of different theories each one unique to the church/region of that specific protestant subculture. Within Christianity, there is only 2 main groups that have a dogma that says "this is the truth" and that is Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I don't know much about Eastern Orthodox in their viewpoint of the creation story, but I do know Catholics are taught specifically that Genesis is poetic and not to be taken literally. Protestants, not being a unified body, have no such qualms. Hence some cherry pick, some don't, and some don't even read it. Your asking for a non-existent stance. thanks that's a good answer. I guess there is no uniform "creationist" text book but now i get that they cherry pick from both and ignore that they are conflicting. In terms of Catholics where is the boundary in the bible that it stops becoming a poem and starts becoming the word of god?
The ultimate Authority is the Pope. But its kind of hierarchical in structure, because of *why* the Pope is who he is.
So first step back and realize something about the Pope.
Peter was one of Jesus' disciples and was an all around coward/bad-ass that Jesus, in the texts, deem as the "rock" or "foundation" of his church.
When Peter died, he got a replacement "rock/foundation" of the church, that was eventually called the Pope. Each pope is a direct link back towards Peter who was given that role by Jesus. (A kind of "ordained by God to be the eyes/ears/mouth" of the lord himself)
With that in mind, its sort of the Pope's job to make that differentiation. However, since the church is huge, the responsibilities are delegated down the ranks. The person above you has authority and say because that person is guided by the person above him which eventually links up to the Pope who is guided by God.
At some point down the line, someone in the order makes a proclamation/statement/whatever that catches the attention of those above him. "Genesis is poetic, we don't need to do the mass in latin, masturbation is murder, etc..."
If this is problematic to a large body of the church, it gets sent up the line until people are happy or the pope gets to it.
And its with these checks and balances that these dogmas get decided. Essentially any priest can theoretically start something, and then it goes up the ranks being discussed to tears until a final decision is made.
If its too touchy a subject (say, pedophilia) then it "disappears" in the ranks being discussed till the end of time. If its something that is good, the Pope or someone the pope gives the okay to makes a proclamation about it.
For example, the pope saying its possible aliens exist, which is also him agreeing with everything that that entails (other life, planetary bodies, objects in space, non-human centric world views, etc...) and once the proclamation is made, the current teaching have to adapt to that new axiom.
|
So do people believe that the pope talks directly to god, or do they just agree with whatever he says because he was "chosen" for the position by god and so anything he says/ does is god's will - otherwise he wouldn't have become pope.
|
On April 18 2014 07:27 Epishade wrote:
So do people believe that the pope talks directly to god, or do they just agree with whatever he says because he was "chosen" for the position by god and so anything he says/ does is god's will - otherwise he wouldn't have become pope.
They are "supposed to" believe that God talks through the Pope.
They are also supposed to believe that the bread *does* turn into flesh and the wine *does* turn into blood.
How orthodox each Catholic is depends on the Catholic.
But yes, they are supposed to believe that. Much like they can believe that praying to a Saint allows that Saint to pray for you making it so that you have 2 people praying for you instead of yourself.
|
United States41964 Posts
On April 18 2014 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, atheism refering to a lack of belief/faith and agnosticism refering to an absence of (absolute) knowledge. In practical terms the vast majority of atheists are agnostic, and vice versa. So I'm not sure why anyone would have a particular appreciation for the difference between those two concepts.
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. The reason for the difference is that there are also a LOT of religious individuals who are, for the most part, Agnostic. A grand majority of them practice to their absence of absolute knowledge and hence lean heavily on the teachings of preachers, counsels, and spiritual guidance. Its a very specific difference between Agnostics and Atheists. One can be Atheist and Agnostic. One can also be religious, and Agnostic. One can also be Religious/Atheist and NOT Agnostic. There's a very big difference between "there's no proof God is real" compared to "I know, for a fact, that God isn't real" Much like there's a very big difference between "God is real, so shut your mouth with that heresy" compared to "These ancient texts are witness testimonies to the truth of God, unless I don't believe in history how can I not believe in God?" One can still question everything and have faith in an almighty whatever. Even if that almighty whatever is merely laws of the universe that exist because the universe says so.
No atheist anywhere claims factual knowledge of the non existence of God, that would require factual knowledge of everything. Rather they subscribe to Russel's teapot whereby falsifiable claims are dismissed out of hand until the claimant provides evidence to back the claim.
|
On April 18 2014 07:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, atheism refering to a lack of belief/faith and agnosticism refering to an absence of (absolute) knowledge. In practical terms the vast majority of atheists are agnostic, and vice versa. So I'm not sure why anyone would have a particular appreciation for the difference between those two concepts.
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. The reason for the difference is that there are also a LOT of religious individuals who are, for the most part, Agnostic. A grand majority of them practice to their absence of absolute knowledge and hence lean heavily on the teachings of preachers, counsels, and spiritual guidance. Its a very specific difference between Agnostics and Atheists. One can be Atheist and Agnostic. One can also be religious, and Agnostic. One can also be Religious/Atheist and NOT Agnostic. There's a very big difference between "there's no proof God is real" compared to "I know, for a fact, that God isn't real" Much like there's a very big difference between "God is real, so shut your mouth with that heresy" compared to "These ancient texts are witness testimonies to the truth of God, unless I don't believe in history how can I not believe in God?" One can still question everything and have faith in an almighty whatever. Even if that almighty whatever is merely laws of the universe that exist because the universe says so. No atheist anywhere claims factual knowledge of the non existence of God, that would require factual knowledge of everything. Rather they subscribe to Russel's teapot whereby falsifiable claims are dismissed out of hand until the claimant provides evidence to back the claim.
I've known many people say that God does not exist. Are you saying that I simply hallucinated them? That there aren't people out there who say that God does not exist? Don't be naive.
|
United States41964 Posts
On April 18 2014 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 07:39 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, atheism refering to a lack of belief/faith and agnosticism refering to an absence of (absolute) knowledge. In practical terms the vast majority of atheists are agnostic, and vice versa. So I'm not sure why anyone would have a particular appreciation for the difference between those two concepts.
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. The reason for the difference is that there are also a LOT of religious individuals who are, for the most part, Agnostic. A grand majority of them practice to their absence of absolute knowledge and hence lean heavily on the teachings of preachers, counsels, and spiritual guidance. Its a very specific difference between Agnostics and Atheists. One can be Atheist and Agnostic. One can also be religious, and Agnostic. One can also be Religious/Atheist and NOT Agnostic. There's a very big difference between "there's no proof God is real" compared to "I know, for a fact, that God isn't real" Much like there's a very big difference between "God is real, so shut your mouth with that heresy" compared to "These ancient texts are witness testimonies to the truth of God, unless I don't believe in history how can I not believe in God?" One can still question everything and have faith in an almighty whatever. Even if that almighty whatever is merely laws of the universe that exist because the universe says so. No atheist anywhere claims factual knowledge of the non existence of God, that would require factual knowledge of everything. Rather they subscribe to Russel's teapot whereby falsifiable claims are dismissed out of hand until the claimant provides evidence to back the claim. I've known many people say that God does not exist. Are you saying that I simply hallucinated them? That there aren't people out there who say that God does not exist? Don't be naive.
They are not making a claim that they have personally surveyed every atom of the universe and checked, they are rather making a broad statement about baseless unverifiable assertions being presumed to not exist until proven. These are two very different things.
You opened with "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist" and are now asserting that because you've known many people say "God does not exist" then you have heard them say that "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist". You appear to have hallucinated the words "for a fact".
|
On April 18 2014 07:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:39 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, atheism refering to a lack of belief/faith and agnosticism refering to an absence of (absolute) knowledge. In practical terms the vast majority of atheists are agnostic, and vice versa. So I'm not sure why anyone would have a particular appreciation for the difference between those two concepts.
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. The reason for the difference is that there are also a LOT of religious individuals who are, for the most part, Agnostic. A grand majority of them practice to their absence of absolute knowledge and hence lean heavily on the teachings of preachers, counsels, and spiritual guidance. Its a very specific difference between Agnostics and Atheists. One can be Atheist and Agnostic. One can also be religious, and Agnostic. One can also be Religious/Atheist and NOT Agnostic. There's a very big difference between "there's no proof God is real" compared to "I know, for a fact, that God isn't real" Much like there's a very big difference between "God is real, so shut your mouth with that heresy" compared to "These ancient texts are witness testimonies to the truth of God, unless I don't believe in history how can I not believe in God?" One can still question everything and have faith in an almighty whatever. Even if that almighty whatever is merely laws of the universe that exist because the universe says so. No atheist anywhere claims factual knowledge of the non existence of God, that would require factual knowledge of everything. Rather they subscribe to Russel's teapot whereby falsifiable claims are dismissed out of hand until the claimant provides evidence to back the claim. I've known many people say that God does not exist. Are you saying that I simply hallucinated them? That there aren't people out there who say that God does not exist? Don't be naive. They are not making a claim that they have personally surveyed every atom of the universe and checked, they are rather making a broad statement about baseless unverifiable assertions being presumed to not exist until proven. These are two very different things. You opened with "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist" and are now asserting that because you've known many people say "God does not exist" then you have heard them say that "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist". You appear to have hallucinated the words "for a fact".
Do you really wish to speak for a totality that you have not personally conversed with?
Someone made the statement that there is a difference between being an athiest and being an agnostic. Someone suggested that Agnostic means almost the same thing as Athiest, and I showed him that it is very much possible for Theists to be Agnostics. Willingness to accept that not all things are known is someone that is not unique to being Athiest.
You, apparently, want to make the assertion that its impossible for there to be an athiest that isn't agnostic; which is equally as silly as imagining a theist that can be agnostic.
|
United States41964 Posts
On April 18 2014 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 07:51 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:39 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, atheism refering to a lack of belief/faith and agnosticism refering to an absence of (absolute) knowledge. In practical terms the vast majority of atheists are agnostic, and vice versa. So I'm not sure why anyone would have a particular appreciation for the difference between those two concepts.
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. The reason for the difference is that there are also a LOT of religious individuals who are, for the most part, Agnostic. A grand majority of them practice to their absence of absolute knowledge and hence lean heavily on the teachings of preachers, counsels, and spiritual guidance. Its a very specific difference between Agnostics and Atheists. One can be Atheist and Agnostic. One can also be religious, and Agnostic. One can also be Religious/Atheist and NOT Agnostic. There's a very big difference between "there's no proof God is real" compared to "I know, for a fact, that God isn't real" Much like there's a very big difference between "God is real, so shut your mouth with that heresy" compared to "These ancient texts are witness testimonies to the truth of God, unless I don't believe in history how can I not believe in God?" One can still question everything and have faith in an almighty whatever. Even if that almighty whatever is merely laws of the universe that exist because the universe says so. No atheist anywhere claims factual knowledge of the non existence of God, that would require factual knowledge of everything. Rather they subscribe to Russel's teapot whereby falsifiable claims are dismissed out of hand until the claimant provides evidence to back the claim. I've known many people say that God does not exist. Are you saying that I simply hallucinated them? That there aren't people out there who say that God does not exist? Don't be naive. They are not making a claim that they have personally surveyed every atom of the universe and checked, they are rather making a broad statement about baseless unverifiable assertions being presumed to not exist until proven. These are two very different things. You opened with "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist" and are now asserting that because you've known many people say "God does not exist" then you have heard them say that "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist". You appear to have hallucinated the words "for a fact". Do you really wish to speak for a totality that you have not personally conversed with? Someone made the statement that there is a difference between being an athiest and being an agnostic. Someone suggested that Agnostic means almost the same thing as Athiest, and I showed him that it is very much possible for Theists to be Agnostics. Willingness to accept that not all things are known is someone that is not unique to being Athiest. You, apparently, want to make the assertion that its impossible for there to be an athiest that isn't agnostic; which is equally as silly as imagining a theist that can be agnostic.
You're not getting this. Atheists don't need a factual knowledge of the lack of a God. I think you need to look up Russel's Teapot, you're clearly unfamiliar with the concepts involved.
|
On April 18 2014 08:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:51 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:39 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, atheism refering to a lack of belief/faith and agnosticism refering to an absence of (absolute) knowledge. In practical terms the vast majority of atheists are agnostic, and vice versa. So I'm not sure why anyone would have a particular appreciation for the difference between those two concepts.
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. The reason for the difference is that there are also a LOT of religious individuals who are, for the most part, Agnostic. A grand majority of them practice to their absence of absolute knowledge and hence lean heavily on the teachings of preachers, counsels, and spiritual guidance. Its a very specific difference between Agnostics and Atheists. One can be Atheist and Agnostic. One can also be religious, and Agnostic. One can also be Religious/Atheist and NOT Agnostic. There's a very big difference between "there's no proof God is real" compared to "I know, for a fact, that God isn't real" Much like there's a very big difference between "God is real, so shut your mouth with that heresy" compared to "These ancient texts are witness testimonies to the truth of God, unless I don't believe in history how can I not believe in God?" One can still question everything and have faith in an almighty whatever. Even if that almighty whatever is merely laws of the universe that exist because the universe says so. No atheist anywhere claims factual knowledge of the non existence of God, that would require factual knowledge of everything. Rather they subscribe to Russel's teapot whereby falsifiable claims are dismissed out of hand until the claimant provides evidence to back the claim. I've known many people say that God does not exist. Are you saying that I simply hallucinated them? That there aren't people out there who say that God does not exist? Don't be naive. They are not making a claim that they have personally surveyed every atom of the universe and checked, they are rather making a broad statement about baseless unverifiable assertions being presumed to not exist until proven. These are two very different things. You opened with "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist" and are now asserting that because you've known many people say "God does not exist" then you have heard them say that "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist". You appear to have hallucinated the words "for a fact". Do you really wish to speak for a totality that you have not personally conversed with? Someone made the statement that there is a difference between being an athiest and being an agnostic. Someone suggested that Agnostic means almost the same thing as Athiest, and I showed him that it is very much possible for Theists to be Agnostics. Willingness to accept that not all things are known is someone that is not unique to being Athiest. You, apparently, want to make the assertion that its impossible for there to be an athiest that isn't agnostic; which is equally as silly as imagining a theist that can be agnostic. You're not getting this. Atheists don't need a factual knowledge of the lack of a God. I think you need to look up Russel's Teapot, you're clearly unfamiliar with the concepts involved.
You do understand the concept of being Agnostic and not being Agnostic right? Agnostics take the lack of evidence as meaning they don't have a say. Non-agnostics feels that a lack of evidence does not allows them to make a conclusions. Being able to make conclusions without evidence means that you're not agnostic. By definition.
Saying Russels Teapot allows you to call yourself agnostic despite not having evidence contradicts the definition of Agnostic.
|
United States41964 Posts
On April 18 2014 08:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 08:05 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:51 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:39 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, atheism refering to a lack of belief/faith and agnosticism refering to an absence of (absolute) knowledge. In practical terms the vast majority of atheists are agnostic, and vice versa. So I'm not sure why anyone would have a particular appreciation for the difference between those two concepts.
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. The reason for the difference is that there are also a LOT of religious individuals who are, for the most part, Agnostic. A grand majority of them practice to their absence of absolute knowledge and hence lean heavily on the teachings of preachers, counsels, and spiritual guidance. Its a very specific difference between Agnostics and Atheists. One can be Atheist and Agnostic. One can also be religious, and Agnostic. One can also be Religious/Atheist and NOT Agnostic. There's a very big difference between "there's no proof God is real" compared to "I know, for a fact, that God isn't real" Much like there's a very big difference between "God is real, so shut your mouth with that heresy" compared to "These ancient texts are witness testimonies to the truth of God, unless I don't believe in history how can I not believe in God?" One can still question everything and have faith in an almighty whatever. Even if that almighty whatever is merely laws of the universe that exist because the universe says so. No atheist anywhere claims factual knowledge of the non existence of God, that would require factual knowledge of everything. Rather they subscribe to Russel's teapot whereby falsifiable claims are dismissed out of hand until the claimant provides evidence to back the claim. I've known many people say that God does not exist. Are you saying that I simply hallucinated them? That there aren't people out there who say that God does not exist? Don't be naive. They are not making a claim that they have personally surveyed every atom of the universe and checked, they are rather making a broad statement about baseless unverifiable assertions being presumed to not exist until proven. These are two very different things. You opened with "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist" and are now asserting that because you've known many people say "God does not exist" then you have heard them say that "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist". You appear to have hallucinated the words "for a fact". Do you really wish to speak for a totality that you have not personally conversed with? Someone made the statement that there is a difference between being an athiest and being an agnostic. Someone suggested that Agnostic means almost the same thing as Athiest, and I showed him that it is very much possible for Theists to be Agnostics. Willingness to accept that not all things are known is someone that is not unique to being Athiest. You, apparently, want to make the assertion that its impossible for there to be an athiest that isn't agnostic; which is equally as silly as imagining a theist that can be agnostic. You're not getting this. Atheists don't need a factual knowledge of the lack of a God. I think you need to look up Russel's Teapot, you're clearly unfamiliar with the concepts involved. You do understand the concept of being Agnostic and not being Agnostic right? Agnostics take the lack of evidence as meaning they don't have a say. Non-agnostics feels that a lack of evidence does not allows them to make a conclusions. Being able to make conclusions without evidence means that you're not agnostic. By definition. Saying Russels Teapot allows you to call yourself agnostic despite not having evidence contradicts the definition of Agnostic.
That didn't even make sense.
|
On April 18 2014 08:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 08:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 08:05 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:51 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:39 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, atheism refering to a lack of belief/faith and agnosticism refering to an absence of (absolute) knowledge. In practical terms the vast majority of atheists are agnostic, and vice versa. So I'm not sure why anyone would have a particular appreciation for the difference between those two concepts.
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. The reason for the difference is that there are also a LOT of religious individuals who are, for the most part, Agnostic. A grand majority of them practice to their absence of absolute knowledge and hence lean heavily on the teachings of preachers, counsels, and spiritual guidance. Its a very specific difference between Agnostics and Atheists. One can be Atheist and Agnostic. One can also be religious, and Agnostic. One can also be Religious/Atheist and NOT Agnostic. There's a very big difference between "there's no proof God is real" compared to "I know, for a fact, that God isn't real" Much like there's a very big difference between "God is real, so shut your mouth with that heresy" compared to "These ancient texts are witness testimonies to the truth of God, unless I don't believe in history how can I not believe in God?" One can still question everything and have faith in an almighty whatever. Even if that almighty whatever is merely laws of the universe that exist because the universe says so. No atheist anywhere claims factual knowledge of the non existence of God, that would require factual knowledge of everything. Rather they subscribe to Russel's teapot whereby falsifiable claims are dismissed out of hand until the claimant provides evidence to back the claim. I've known many people say that God does not exist. Are you saying that I simply hallucinated them? That there aren't people out there who say that God does not exist? Don't be naive. They are not making a claim that they have personally surveyed every atom of the universe and checked, they are rather making a broad statement about baseless unverifiable assertions being presumed to not exist until proven. These are two very different things. You opened with "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist" and are now asserting that because you've known many people say "God does not exist" then you have heard them say that "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist". You appear to have hallucinated the words "for a fact". Do you really wish to speak for a totality that you have not personally conversed with? Someone made the statement that there is a difference between being an athiest and being an agnostic. Someone suggested that Agnostic means almost the same thing as Athiest, and I showed him that it is very much possible for Theists to be Agnostics. Willingness to accept that not all things are known is someone that is not unique to being Athiest. You, apparently, want to make the assertion that its impossible for there to be an athiest that isn't agnostic; which is equally as silly as imagining a theist that can be agnostic. You're not getting this. Atheists don't need a factual knowledge of the lack of a God. I think you need to look up Russel's Teapot, you're clearly unfamiliar with the concepts involved. You do understand the concept of being Agnostic and not being Agnostic right? Agnostics take the lack of evidence as meaning they don't have a say. Non-agnostics feels that a lack of evidence does not allows them to make a conclusions. Being able to make conclusions without evidence means that you're not agnostic. By definition. Saying Russels Teapot allows you to call yourself agnostic despite not having evidence contradicts the definition of Agnostic. That didn't even make sense.
Let me speak slowly then.
Agnostics, by definition, need evidence. Because, by definition, Agnostics believe they don't know everything.
If you can make conclusions through lack of evidence, you are not Agnostic. By definition.
|
United States41964 Posts
On April 18 2014 08:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 08:12 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 08:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 08:05 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:51 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:39 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, atheism refering to a lack of belief/faith and agnosticism refering to an absence of (absolute) knowledge. In practical terms the vast majority of atheists are agnostic, and vice versa. So I'm not sure why anyone would have a particular appreciation for the difference between those two concepts.
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong. The reason for the difference is that there are also a LOT of religious individuals who are, for the most part, Agnostic. A grand majority of them practice to their absence of absolute knowledge and hence lean heavily on the teachings of preachers, counsels, and spiritual guidance. Its a very specific difference between Agnostics and Atheists. One can be Atheist and Agnostic. One can also be religious, and Agnostic. One can also be Religious/Atheist and NOT Agnostic. There's a very big difference between "there's no proof God is real" compared to "I know, for a fact, that God isn't real" Much like there's a very big difference between "God is real, so shut your mouth with that heresy" compared to "These ancient texts are witness testimonies to the truth of God, unless I don't believe in history how can I not believe in God?" One can still question everything and have faith in an almighty whatever. Even if that almighty whatever is merely laws of the universe that exist because the universe says so. No atheist anywhere claims factual knowledge of the non existence of God, that would require factual knowledge of everything. Rather they subscribe to Russel's teapot whereby falsifiable claims are dismissed out of hand until the claimant provides evidence to back the claim. I've known many people say that God does not exist. Are you saying that I simply hallucinated them? That there aren't people out there who say that God does not exist? Don't be naive. They are not making a claim that they have personally surveyed every atom of the universe and checked, they are rather making a broad statement about baseless unverifiable assertions being presumed to not exist until proven. These are two very different things. You opened with "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist" and are now asserting that because you've known many people say "God does not exist" then you have heard them say that "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist". You appear to have hallucinated the words "for a fact". Do you really wish to speak for a totality that you have not personally conversed with? Someone made the statement that there is a difference between being an athiest and being an agnostic. Someone suggested that Agnostic means almost the same thing as Athiest, and I showed him that it is very much possible for Theists to be Agnostics. Willingness to accept that not all things are known is someone that is not unique to being Athiest. You, apparently, want to make the assertion that its impossible for there to be an athiest that isn't agnostic; which is equally as silly as imagining a theist that can be agnostic. You're not getting this. Atheists don't need a factual knowledge of the lack of a God. I think you need to look up Russel's Teapot, you're clearly unfamiliar with the concepts involved. You do understand the concept of being Agnostic and not being Agnostic right? Agnostics take the lack of evidence as meaning they don't have a say. Non-agnostics feels that a lack of evidence does not allows them to make a conclusions. Being able to make conclusions without evidence means that you're not agnostic. By definition. Saying Russels Teapot allows you to call yourself agnostic despite not having evidence contradicts the definition of Agnostic. That didn't even make sense. Let me speak slowly then. Agnostics, by definition, need evidence. Because, by definition, Agnostics believe they don't know everything. If you can make conclusions through lack of evidence, you are not Agnostic. By definition.
Instead of speaking slowly I suggest you take the time to achieve a basic grasp of the English language. I'm normally fairly tolerant but if English isn't your first language then holy shit you're bad at this. Although I'm not sure what to expect by debating atheism with someone who can't even spell the word atheist. Nice triple negative in your sentence "Non-agnostics feels that a lack of evidence does not allows them to make a conclusions" by the way, if what you were trying to say by that is that agnostics feel that a lack of evidence does allow them to make conclusions then no, that's atheists. Which, incidentally, is what we were talking about until you randomly made a post full of the word agnostic, sometimes capitalised for no fucking reason, and sometimes not. My only explanation for how you somehow forgot what we were talking about in a quote exchange is that you realised you couldn't spell atheist and panicked, although why you didn't just read up and see is beyond me.
Again, atheists do not claim an exact knowledge of the entirety of creation, nor that they have personally checked the entirety of creation and personally verified the non existence of God through some kind of test. They believe that one does not need to have done that in order to make claims about the non existence of things. And with that I give up because at this point my posting is basically charity work on behalf of the US Department of Education which has clearly been negligent in your case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
