Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 176 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 95% |
Arguments: | 173 |
Debates: | 2 |
My interest in this topic is not personal. Also, nothing about being an Atheist necessitates you removing a deity as a possibility.
We don't have to know an origin to have a belief/opinion on it. That is the whole point of a belief. You make the best judgment with the evidence you have, but you leave your mind open new information. I feel like most self-proclaimed Agnostics don't think (a belief, not epistemology) there is a deity, yet fear of being wrong seems like a factor preventing initial thoughts to occur as to what the origin is. I am merely trying to make a distinction between thinking about the origin of the Universe as compared to the argument that we can or cannot know its origin.
If God were real, I would also not change a thing I do, as the ones described in religions are evil. I also would be very disappointed if this vast, and awesome Universe was created by a personified creator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
The tiny part of what people have applied to Agnosticism (the kind you are referring to, not the classical kind) is the differences between a belief and knowledge. But knowledge is simply a justified true belief. There would be no reason to have a belief if it was justified and true. We would then refer to that as knowledge. Agnosticism was meant to be about knowing God's existence. When someone asks religious views, they typically do not mean the question epistemologically. The typically mean "what do you think the origin of existence is?" You fall in the very broad category of Atheism because you lack a belief in god(s). I'm just trying to show you that the debate over the Universe's origin and the debate over whether or not we can know that origin are very different.
Correct. The body is but a shell as is according to Christianity. Again, I must remind you everyone that this is not a debate for or against the existence of Jesus. It is merely a philosophical question regarding the identity of a character in literature.
That is irrelevant to the argument. Why can you not understand that? This is a philosophical problem regarding the identity of Jesus as a character. Your analogy is fallacious because this argument has no involvement with the belief or the lack of belief in Jesus. You must not let your emotions cloud your judgement.
You also misunderstand the definition of Atheism. The narrow scope of Atheism involves the lack of belief in a deity. Thus, ontologically you are an Atheist. Agnosticism is an entirely different debate. Also, there would be no need for a debate if everything was proven.
|