Agnostic means you can't confirm or deny the existence of a God or gods (which is where i stand). This one plainly says they don't believe in any god or gods.
I am with you all the way. We don't know how exactly we got here, and it's ok. I don't ask.
I'm superstitious though... it's difficult being atheist and superstitious at the same time
7
deleted
· 8 years ago
I hadn't considered the two would be lumped together. How is it difficult being both if you don't mind my asking
I think I have the same problem so I'll try to answer it to the best of my ability. For me it's constantly reminding yourself of an inner discussion on do we believe or no with arguments like, there'd be no higher powers that'd be silly vs. Then why do we worry about not opening umbrellas inside as much as we do about looking both ways before crossing
technically, we can't scientifically prove that intelligent design doesn't exist, either. sure, evolution disproves the "God made the earth in seven days" thing but technically there is nothing in scientific law that absolutely proves that there is no intelligent being that started all life
Actually science doesn't necessarily disprove the "God made in the Earth in Seven Days", take a look at this line from the Bible
Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
So necessarily it doesn't entirely disprove it yet doesn't entirely support it either. But you are correct, nothing in Science proves that there isn't a Divine Being, in fact there is more evidence to prove the existence of a Divine Being than there is to prove one does not exist, a majority Science actually supports the theory of a Divine Being having been responsible for the Creation of the Universe, although this Majority isn't actually the Majority by very much, it's only winning by a tiny percentage
I know, but it doesn't always, it usually takes much longer, but we don't necessarily know that Evolution wasn't different a long time ago, everything, including the processes of nature, can and will change, my point is that Science doesn't disprove the existence of a Divine Being, and that necessarily the process and time it takes for things to Evolve could have have been much different back then, in fact upon further review I have found the Bible never actually states that things remained the same from when God created them, it never says that Evolution doesn't exist, so Science can't prove God doesn't exist, We don't know how the process of Evolution has changed as things have evolved, for all we know back then Evolution could have been an inefficient yet short process, Small changes over a much shorter time, eventually changing, to become more efficient at the drawback of taking longer, more changes over a much longer time, we can't rule it out just yet
I agree you can't use sciences to prove God doesn't exist in the same way you can't use the Bible to disprove science. However the theory of evolution has a lot of evidence that shows humans likely evolved from ape-like ancestors, does this prove God doesn't exist? No but it does suggest that things didn't happen the way the Bible says they did.
Still doesn't disprove the existence of God however, currently the theory that we evolved from apes is only that, a Scientific Theory, it has a lot of evidence to support it, but at this point in time there is nothing that actually confirms the Theory to be 100% Correct, as we don't have a level of Tech able to tell us at 100% Accuracy that it's true that we evolved from them, it most likely correct but we still don't have that final percentage, it's just important to keep an open mind, as there is nothing that actually disproves the existence of God at 100% nor is there anything that 100% proves he is real, at this point in time we have to make that decision for ourselves until we can find out. The same goes with the Humans came from Apes theory, nothing 100% Proves it but nothing 100% Disproves it. Time will tell if these are true or not.
I agree with all of the points you guys have made. However IMO the common ancestry type of evolution shouldn't even be called a 'scientific theory'.
According to Wikipedia, "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
You cannot observe nor experiment with ape-to-man style evolution, because there simply isn't enough time in our lifespan. It is IMO not well substantiated as there is just as much if not better evidence for Creation. And evoltion is filled with so many assumptions that it can just as well be called a glorified guess as to our origin. It should not be called a scientific theory.
@sublimegamer No, it is a scientific theory, prove me wrong if you will but you don't seem to have an idea of what is considered evidence in the scientific community. Now there is outstanding evidence, evolution could be so easily disproven if only one fossil was found out of place and so far it's done spectacularly well, we can see a progression in fossils, if you could I would like it if you could explain all these assumptions you say that evolution is based off of because all of it is supported by evidence of you actually cared to do some research.
There's so much research that can be done on this topic. I can only list a few examples. One of which is soft dinosaur tissue found today (unfossilised).
"These dinosaur fossils are typically dated by the standard geologic time scale as at least 65 million years old. However, the presence of intact tissue presents a significant challenge to the assigned date of these fossils. Can tissue (aggregates of interconnected cells) retain its natural, flexible characteristics in so-called ancient fossils?"
https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php/contact-crs/item/87-idino-investigation-of-dinosaur-intact-natural-osteo-tissue
This proves dinosaurs aren't millions of years old.
Many other scientific finds have been found to challenge evolution, but people insist it must be true. They repeatedly ignore previous evidence and never mention it to the presses. Prostrate fossils, clams on top of Mount Everest, whale bones in the Chilean deserts, and fossilised human footrints inside dinosaurs'.
Evolution assumes life arose from non-life (abiogenesis), which is against the natural law of biogenesis. The Big Bang assumes faster-than-light travel to explain such evenly dispersed uniform background radiation in our universe. It assumes all life has a common ancestor. You cannot prove a dead thing had ANY offspring whatsoever. Evolution is founded upon assumptions.
As a Christian, I can't respect your religion. Hear me out. I can't respect any other religion because it's wrong. Am I biases? Yes. But I'm not some kid that grew up in church, because I was taught at a young age that the Bible was a big fairytale. Only a year ago did I start believing. He showed himself to me and now I entrust my life to Jesus. Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship. After learning that it wasn't a bunch of check lists, I now understand who He is and how great his love for me is. I respect and love other people. Therefore I don't want others to live a life apart from Jesus Christ. I have felt such grace, love, and forgiveness. Jesus is on our side. If He wasn't, He wouldn't have died for our sins. Jesus took me in and called me family. That's why I want others to feel this way. I love you, so I want you to have a relationship with the one who was and is and is to come. There is a God. Jesus Christ loves you and He wants you to know that.
That's exactly what I have been wanting to say for such a long time! I have always been in church since I was little, but I can still see and feel God moving in my life and the lives of others around me. *More bible high fives*
He loves everyone unconditionally! Unconditionally! No matter how far you have fallen! And He wants you to know you can always come back to him for help.
I really agree with you @nicoleeeeeee, I always think: If I have found what I truly believe is the answer to life, how dare I keep it from the people I love? My friends and family have the right to know Jesus.
Or you sincerely care about their future in the afterlife. I'm sure saving them in eternity will trump however much annoyed they could get at you in this world.
Have anyone of you guys checked the rules of Satanism?(I don't mean the one with straight up evil shitty practices) Just search it on wikipedia. One of their rules of living is "Do not give opinions or advice until you are asked to". That is their first rule out of eleven which pretty much covers everything he/she said
Yeeess thank youuuuu. I believe in God. If someone doesn't it is ok. We are free. But like it says neither of us can prove it. I have my reasons to believe. Those atheits that force their "no beliefs" on you are acting like the religious people they critize so much!!!
The atheists who attack religion are called "militant atheists."
You don't need to redefine your own group when their group already has a clear definition that is already making the distinction from normal atheists.
She also says that they can't prove they don't exist.
Agnostics may not believe that there is a God, but they are still agnostic. If she had said "we believe that there is no god\gods\the divine" that would be atheist.
She also says that they can't prove they don't exist.
Agnostics may not believe that there is a God, but they are still agnostic. If she had said "we believe that there is no god\gods\the divine" that would be atheist.
I'm superstitious though... it's difficult being atheist and superstitious at the same time
Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
So necessarily it doesn't entirely disprove it yet doesn't entirely support it either. But you are correct, nothing in Science proves that there isn't a Divine Being, in fact there is more evidence to prove the existence of a Divine Being than there is to prove one does not exist, a majority Science actually supports the theory of a Divine Being having been responsible for the Creation of the Universe, although this Majority isn't actually the Majority by very much, it's only winning by a tiny percentage
According to Wikipedia, "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
You cannot observe nor experiment with ape-to-man style evolution, because there simply isn't enough time in our lifespan. It is IMO not well substantiated as there is just as much if not better evidence for Creation. And evoltion is filled with so many assumptions that it can just as well be called a glorified guess as to our origin. It should not be called a scientific theory.
"These dinosaur fossils are typically dated by the standard geologic time scale as at least 65 million years old. However, the presence of intact tissue presents a significant challenge to the assigned date of these fossils. Can tissue (aggregates of interconnected cells) retain its natural, flexible characteristics in so-called ancient fossils?"
https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php/contact-crs/item/87-idino-investigation-of-dinosaur-intact-natural-osteo-tissue
This proves dinosaurs aren't millions of years old.
Many other scientific finds have been found to challenge evolution, but people insist it must be true. They repeatedly ignore previous evidence and never mention it to the presses. Prostrate fossils, clams on top of Mount Everest, whale bones in the Chilean deserts, and fossilised human footrints inside dinosaurs'.
I have corrected it.
You don't need to redefine your own group when their group already has a clear definition that is already making the distinction from normal atheists.
Agnostics may not believe that there is a God, but they are still agnostic. If she had said "we believe that there is no god\gods\the divine" that would be atheist.
Agnostics may not believe that there is a God, but they are still agnostic. If she had said "we believe that there is no god\gods\the divine" that would be atheist.