Religious affiliations of Prius owners

The concept of "god" has nothing to do with the possibility of the universe being created. Confusing our lack knowledge of the formation of the universe with agnosticism is an incorrect conclusion. The flying spaghetti monster and the "giant submersible bratwurst" could have given birth to the universe (which they might have named "squirt"), for all I know, and that possibility has nothing to do with my religious or spiritual beliefs.

 

Here is where we part ways Bra...


While I agree it is obvious that GSB is a false god... FSM is not...


Come-on Bra... Beer Volcanoes... be serious... That has to be the creator, right...







Bob Jr
The Church of the Living Bob

 

I'm with you, the GSB doesn't even exist on Google (yet) so it is obviously a false god. Satan will eventually put him on Google, but he will still be a false god

As an 40+ year Ordained Minister in the Universal Life Church, I'm down with the FSM. Pastallelujah and praise the wheat from which we came.

 

You are one of the same cloth as I, Brother...


I also am a ULC Minister...

Only... I ain't as young as you'uns... yet I don't believe I am of wheat... I believe I am of fungus... which, evidently is evident in the base pairs of animals... soooo... me and mushrooms have a cousin... and both of us have had to live on bullshit to get to where we are today

.

 

I pulled out my official ordination document, June 6th 1969 and I was long past childhood then (at least I was past it in a legal sense).

Wheat, fungus and bullshit are all part of the same process, so peace on you brother.:cheer2:

 

Confusing religion and spiritual beliefs with agnosticism is an incorrect conclusion. If you say "I have no knowledge of how the universe was created", you are an Agnostic, nothing more or less.

 

If this is true, how could someone "believe" in Mars, the god of war, who had nothing to do with the creation of the universe?

 

The same way one can "Believe" in Allah, Jesus, good GM cars, and other non-existent things.

According to by beliefs (or lack thereof), ALL theological theories - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. - even Atheism - are wrong. Agnosticism doesn't mean "They COULD be right" (yes, there are many who subscribe to that philosophy, but they're probably the type who buy lottery tickets, too). It simply means "We don't freakin' know." Which we don't. Anyone who adds anything to that definition is just adding their own person baggage.

A great example is Pascal's Wager. "If you believe in God and He does exist, you win!", says he. What he didn't take into account is what if you're believing in the wrong God? The only way to win is not to play.

 

Amen brutha! :rockon:

 

Seems to me the basis for determining agnosticism is determined by whether or not someone has a open mind to the creation of the universe. That simply doesn't make sense to me. Who decides that the existence of a universe is worthy of god status?

 

Your definition of atheism is too narrow. It comes from Greek meaning "without god". The term is broadly used, and varies markedly from implicit atheism to explicit atheism. Some atheists don't believe in the existence of a god or gods without rejecting the possibility that a god or gods exist. Others reject the existence and state that the assertion by others that god exists is false.

It's not a black and white distinction, but instead more of a continuum of gray: religious fundamentalists on one end, explicit atheists on the other.

Tom

 

Huxley coined the term "Agnotostic" although the concept goes way back to the ancient Greeks and likely well before that.

(From Wikipedia since it agrees with my memory and saves typing)

That's just one quote. I have heard his definition of agnosticism summarized as "I don't know whether or not there is a god, you don't know whether or not there is a god, it is unknowable whether or not there is a god.

There are also several other flavors of agnosticism. If a person says they are agnostic without further defining what they mean by agnostic, you don't really know what they believe.

 

Much of the discussion in this thread reminds me of the debates surrounding luminiferous aether. During the early discussions of electromagnetic waves, it was assumed that they traveled through some sort of medium, just as sound travels through air. It only made sense: Sound is a wave, and it travels through air; light is also a wave, so it must have something through which to travel. This purported substance was called luminiferous aether. It was assumed that space was full of luminiferous aether.

Much effort went into detecting luminiferous aether. All of the results came back negative. Theories were put forth to explain why it wasn't detected. One of the leading theories was called "aether drag". Aether drag explained that the luminiferous aether was pulled along with the earth, so that when we looked for it through relative motion, it was not detected because there was no relative motion. This would be like floating down a river and not being able to detect the current, since you are moving with the current.

Einstein came along with the theory of relativity and explained why light was always moving at the same relative speed. This meant that luminiferous aether was undetectable, even if it did exist. Some physicists altered their stand to say that luminiferous aether was undetectable, but still existed. The counter argument, which eventually prevailed, was this: If luminiferous aether is undetectable, and exerts no influence over anything whatsoever, it doesn't matter if it exists or not. In other words, who cares if it is there or not?

We no longer discuss luminiferous aether, except in threads like this.

Tom

 

I use the fan in my bathroom to get rid of it so it won't stink up the house.

 

If only we could ask Michelson and Morley to derive a divine experiment. Is the word of god faster in one direction than another? Does the speed differ over the seasons?

Einstein's intelligence - and Feynman's and Hawking's and many other giants whose intellectual shoulders we all stand on - has yet to filter through to the general population. If the speed of light is constant, then space and time are not, but most of us blow a mental fuse just thinking about it. It's far easier and more profitable to keep the masses fearful and none too bright. Sadly, Marx was not far off. And as long as we're willing to kill each other over ideas, they still matter. The race is young.

 

Not if Spacely Sprockets are available!

 

That is exactly my point.

I happen to not believe in any supreme being. However the concept of the universe coming into existence because of life forms we do not understand is a separate concept from any belief in any god.

All I know is based on my limited knowledge of what is around me and as technology and published knowledge increases my limited understanding may change. Although I do not believe in a god I am open to learning about that which I have no knowledge. How is that agnostic?

 

Take this simple quiz:

1) Do you admit that all you know is based on limited knowledge of what is around you?

If you answered "Yes" to that question (even if the set of 'what you know' increases), you're probably Agnostic.

 

Priusism

 

You are confusing Agnosticism with StevOism