dailybooth, that's the one! Couldn't remember the name when I responded to your comment. I prefer twitter/twitpic. It's pretty cool. I try to keep up with bloop, but in all honesty i haven't written a real entry in months lol
I love Assassins Creed. I've become quite the Ps3 junkie...I play Red Dead Redemption, LA Noire, Assassins, etc. The newest Assassins was awesome and a fourth one comes out in the fall.
Lol- I didn't realize you even still had bloope! I see you on twitter, Facebook, and some picture site (my- how you grew up!), but rarely do I see you on bloop.
Regardless- thanks for the comment. We are kind of against renting because we make so much money that we could pay a mortgage and not have any debt problems. A house is such a big deal though. I think i have issues with planting roots- mentally. Because id love to be out on our own but a house is a big tie down. I'm weird, I know.
As far as school goes, the program I want is close in September anyways so I have a little time to save money regardless of what we are doing.
ryn: I wasn't saying we are spoiled because we want to enforce immigration laws. We have available to us free public education for our children, health insurance, social security, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, etc. Compared to many other countries we are spoiled. That is what I meant by saying we are spoiled.
Yes, we need to uphold all laws but we can't be ignorant either.
Well, lol, I do believe that earth and space and all things encompasing that are billions of years old, but that is neither hear nor there. The one thought that occured to me is this. At one point, people DID worship Zeus and Olympus and so on and so forth as GODS. Over time, that form of worship became MYTH. Do you suppose that at some point the Bible and Jesus will become Myth as well? Once, people worshiped the sun and the moon. Then those beliefs/theories changed (evolved, if you will). Huh....you got my mind working in high gear here now. lol. I think it was the Math. I better go get some tylenol.
I thought you might find it interesting. Actually, that was just a random page that I googled. There is actually a GREAT amt of simularities between Jesus and MANY of the Greek and Roman Gods of Myth. Type in any generic inquiry in a search engine and you'll be bombarded with results. Its very thought provoking.
RYC: Ok then, since you are obviously blind to your own delusions I will leave you to them. Have fun continuing to perpetuate lies in your diary waiting for a pat on the back from like minded believers. I'm not even going to comment on the absurdity of your latest entry because you are clearly beyond reason. There is no point in arguing with someone who thinks like you. There are other Christians on this site who have no problem carrying on a rational conversation with an unbeliever. You should try emulating their behavior.
RYC: Actually, only a gnostic atheist would assert that "there is no god" which is why you're having such a hard time grasping all this. You refuse to accept the rudimentary definition of atheist or agnostic (a=without/ gnosis=knowing). I understand what the dictionary says, but the definition of agnostic you gave was the noun. In the instance of agnostic atheist, it is an adjective which gives us the definition: asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge. If someone isn't asserting something "there is no god" but instead just says "I don't believe that" there is no way you can say "Well, the burden of proof lies with you then because you don't believe!" Not really how it works. There are very few people who are gnostic atheists who would 100% assert "there is no god". Until you understand that, you won't comprehend that we have nothing to prove therefor nothing to DISprove either. We just don't believe. Atheism is not a belief system, it is a LACK of belief. I'm sure you've heard the "There is no such hobby as NOT collecting stamps".
I also don't accept that it is a spineless position. We can never be 100% sure of anything. Even you can't be 100% sure that you are correct in your belief. I think it's foolish to be gnostic about anything in the realm of belief, whether it be atheism or theism.
I haven't finished anything major or had anything published by a professional publishing group, so I guess I'm not an author...yet. My Wife falls under that category. I'm working to be one, though.
Which reminds me... I have to finish something for my writer's group.
The error in this line of thinking is in that the atheist carries the burden of proof. In fact, it is the believer who is asserting that something exists, so he carries the burden of proof. It would be just as pointless to ask you to "prove to me why you don't believe that the tree out front conjures images of ghosts having a tea party in my dreams.". You never said it DID.
RYC: The problem with that argument is that you can't say "I believe..." and then expect to have some degree of proof. Belief is not knowledge. That's one thing you have to accept in order to have a productive discussion. If you or I were to start a sentence with, "I believe," then there's no logical way you can prove something. Which is why you can't say "I believe the sky is blue," or "I believe the grass is green." It would be, "The sky is blue," or, "The grass is green," and no one would be able to refute that argument.
Which is why there is a distinction between "Gnosticism" and "Theism."
When you call yourself a theist or an atheist, you're not making a logical argument which can be proven. But when you say, "There IS a God," or something to that effect, then you would be making a claim, and would have to either A) have a logical argument to back up that claim, or B) have evidence to back up your claim.
The problem was never anyone asking you to prove your system of beliefs. The problem was being able to prove a claim, such as, "There is a God." When you said, "There is evidence to Jesus' holiness and his resurrection," you need to be able to provide that evidence. Scientific, observable evidence.
Of course, the scientific argument is fluid, and always changing, because Science in itself is fluid and always changing. New discoveries are being made every day. Just because a reason for everything's existence hasn't been discovered doesn't mean there is no reason for it. That especially means that a deity shouldn't be the default position for it, particularly because that relies solely on belief, and not knowledge.
No, you see, you're missing the fact that the terms "belief" and "knowledge" are not interchangeable. There is not one credible person on Earth who has knowledge of the existence of a deity. The reason the term "agnostic atheist" isn't as widespread is because of the misconception that agnostic has the definition of being "on the fence" or simply lacking any knowledge. I'll break it down again:
There are two terms that pertain to knowledge: Gnostic or Agnostic. Gnostic pertains to knowledge. Agnostic pertains to lack of knowledge.
I assume you know the difference between Theist and Atheist.
Gnostic Atheist - Someone who lacks a belief in a god, and claims to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no god.
Gnostic Theist - Someone who believes in a god, and claims to know for a fact that there is a god. As I've said before, there is not one credible source on Earth who claims to know for a fact that a God exists.
Agnostic Atheist - You'll find that most atheists fall into this group. This group lacks a belief in a god, but doesn't claim to have any knowledge of a god.
Gnostic Theist - This group essentially doesn't exist. This is a group that lacks a belief in a god because they claim to know, with 100% certainty, that a deity doesn't exist. While you'll have people who claim to know that a god does NOT exist, you'll find these people don't argue with any kind of logic. The same applies to Gnostic Theists.
I do believe that there was a man named Jesus that traveled around preaching and helping people, he may have even said he was the son of god. I'm not really sure what the general consensus is among other atheists/agnostics as to whether or not Jesus existed. To me, I think it's obvious that he did.
As for the labels, this is exactly the reason I try to avoid them. As soon as you attach a label to yourself, you've invited other people to make assumptions about you. To me, the term agnostic atheist is also a pretty foreign term, I've only heard it a few times and never really understood what it meant.
interesting..... Reminds me of the 'New' Jewish movement, the group that is breaking off saying that they believe Jesus is the savior, but claim they are not Christians. Isn't that the defining difference between the two?
RYC: Yeah, I don't have the time to argue or try to convince anyone of anything, just was throwing that argument out as a possibility regarding the burden of proof. I dig the entry about agnostic atheisim and totally agree.
Atheism uses the scientific method to prove or disprove theories. A scientific hypothesis which can be proven, repeated, and held up to the scrutiny of peer review is about as true as you can get.
Therefore your worldview as an atheist is something is true if it can be proven. Can we prove there is no God? No, but we cannot prove there is one either. Therefore until a scientific test can be devised to prove the existence of God and this test can be repeated then the existence of God is untrue. You can replace God with Magical leprechauns, unicorns, or aliens in the statement above and achieve the same result, and an idea of the core atheist belief system. That is my interpretation of the burden of proof in this situation anyway.
I think if sufficient evidence of a god came to light, it wouldn't be simply rejected by most atheists/agnostics as you say it would. I also don't think being open to various possibilities when no firm evidence exists is the same as being "spaghetti-spined"
There's no answer to that question, because a belief can not be correct or incorrect. Gnosticism or Agnosticism can be correct or incorrect.
Belief refers to Theism or Atheism. Knowledge refers to Gnosticism or Agnosticism. I refer to myself as an Agnostic Atheist. I lack a belief in a deity, though I have no knowledge of a deity's existence.
that's a good point, and the reason I don't call myself an atheist. It is a rather bold statement to say that god (or some other higher being) absolutely can't exist, and it merits the asking for proof. I don't think you can prove god doesn't exist any more than you can prove he does.
I myself doubt the existence of any higher being, but I certainly can't prove it.
Loading...
you're welcome 
dailybooth, that's the one! Couldn't remember the name when I responded to your comment. I prefer twitter/twitpic. It's pretty cool. I try to keep up with bloop, but in all honesty i haven't written a real entry in months lol 
ryn: I wasn't saying we are spoiled because we want to enforce immigration laws. We have available to us free public education for our children, health insurance, social security, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, etc. Compared to many other countries we are spoiled. That is what I meant by saying we are spoiled. 
good luck hun!!!
