The insect kinds

[Mockingbirdred]

As I understand it, and I'm not trying to belittle anyone here, I'm just calling the shots as I see them.

But as I understand it, an agnostic is nothing more than an atheist without a backbone.

If i didn't have a backbone, would I be arguing with you about the matter?

Instead, I'd be curled up in a corner going "Oh god I don't know the answer to anything! Nobody speak to me!"

My opinions require conviction, and it takes balls to admit that you don't know everything. To call me spineless isn't just offensive to me personally (being that I've probably been in more fights and had more people physically confront me in my life than you ever have) but a pretty spineless thing to do in itself, especially when your sitting behing that keyboard of yours on the other side of the Atlantic.

For a 53 year old man, you can be really quite childish sometimes.

 

[Deadbolt]

I couldn't care less if the Ark was 3 cubic feet. As our motto goes: The Bible says it - that settles it.

Then you have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of science, nothing useful anyway.

As I'm fond of saying: Where science disagrees with Scripture - science is wrong.

it's not THAT hard to admit that your strongly held religious beliefs have been disproven. I did it after all, and I used to be an unquestioning biblical literalist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of science, nothing useful anyway.

Nothing, huh? Does, "We hold science up to a higher Standard," mean anything to you guys? After all, if I was a [an atheistic] scientist, I would be impressed that someone would hold "my" standards up to their particular deity; even if I didn't believe in their particular deity. But instead it's water off a duck's back to you guys - and that's a shame.

it's not THAT hard to admit that your strongly held religious beliefs have been disproven. I did it after all, and I used to be an unquestioning biblical literalist.

That'll be the day when our beliefs are disproven. We've been around for, oh, 2000 years, and still going strong.

 

[Nathan Poe]

As I understand it, and I'm not trying to belittle anyone here, I'm just calling the shots as I see them.

But as I understand it, an agnostic is nothing more than an atheist without a backbone.

Feel free to add agnosticism, then, to the ever-growing list of things you do not understand.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nothing, huh? Does, "We hold science up to a higher Standard," mean anything to you guys?

It would, if you actually meant it.

After all, if I was a [an atheistic] scientist, I would be impressed that someone would hold "my" standards up to their particular deity; even if I didn't believe in their particular deity. But instead it's water off a duck's back to you guys - and that's a shame.

Actually, it wouldn't be that impressive at all -- it would be insulting to think that my standards had to be measured by the yardstick of "your" mythology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Feel free to add agnosticism, then, to the ever-growing list of things you do not understand.

Prove me wrong then.

In fact, be the first one to prove me wrong, by simply challenging an Atheist where he gets the idea that God doesn't exist.

I'm not trying to start a holy war here, but I've had to go back more than once and edit a post because I thought I was talking to an atheist, only to find out he's an agnostic, or Buddhist, or even a theistic evolutionist.

It's disgusting --- I can't tell you guys apart.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would, if you actually meant it.

If I didn't mean it, I would be a YEC --- but because I hold science up to a higher Standard, I take your word for the age of the earth, and even make remarks like, "God gifts us scientists."

 

[Nathan Poe]

Prove me wrong then.

About what? It's getting hard to decypher your histrionics.

In fact, be the first one to prove me wrong, by simply challenging an Atheist where he gets the idea that God doesn't exist.

I see no need to, since I'm willing to wager it's not that much different from where I got the idea.

You'll note, for the record, that I've never once disputed your idea that God does exist -- all I've ever disputed are your means to pretzel the real world to fit your archaic interpretation of ancient Scriptures.

I'm not trying to start a holy war here, but I've had to go back more than once and edit a post because I thought I was talking to an atheist, only to find out he's an agnostic, or Buddhist, or even a theistic evolutionist.

It's disgusting --- I can't tell you guys apart.

it's not as though you put a whole lot of effort into it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If I didn't mean it, I would be a YEC

Which you are -- with a dash of Omphalos for flavor

but because I hold science up to a higher Standard, I take your word for the age of the earth,

You believe the Earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago? I thought you were on that crazy Omphalos kick about how the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, created 6,000 years ago.

and even make remarks like, "God gifts us scientists."

You make many remarks, AV. We see little reason to give most of them any weight. Eaten any Atheists for breakfast this morning?

 

[AV1611VET]

You'll note, for the record, that I've never once disputed your idea that God does exist -- all I've ever disputed are your means to pretzel the real world to fit your archaic interpretation of ancient Scriptures.

You can dispute (or not dispute) me all you want --- I'm not an Atheist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which you are -- with a dash of Omphalos for flavor

Ya, ya --- go tell someone who'll believe you.

 

[Deadbolt]

Nothing, huh? Does, "We hold science up to a higher Standard," mean anything to you guys? After all, if I was a [an atheistic] scientist, I would be impressed that someone would hold "my" standards up to their particular deity; even if I didn't believe in their particular deity. But instead it's water off a duck's back to you guys - and that's a shame.

AV1, if you were a theistic scientist you would be about as impressed with your arguments as a garbage man is with kids who knock over trashcans, which is to say, not at all.

That'll be the day when our beliefs are disproven. We've been around for, oh, 2000 years, and still going strong.

You beliefs are disproven. But being as they are, based solely on blind credulity I have a feeling they will be with us for a long time, not in ignorance of the evidence against them, in spite of it.

 

[Baggins]

Let me ask you Agnostics a question that has bothered me since I've come here.

Why, if you're Agnostics, do you so strongly argue against what Christians believe?

I have, in almost two years now, never seen an Agnostic take on an Atheist.

And another thing: How long do you intend to stay Agnostics? Do you like the question mark logo or something, or does hypocrisy just come naturally to you cowards?

I'm not afraid to take on the Atheists --- in fact, I eat them for breakfast.

Firstly I find the idea that you think you eat anyone on here for breakfast most amusing.

I see you more as light entertainment, but I suppose we all have slightly distorted views of how others see us.

You major problem here seems to be that you haven't looked up the dictionary to actually see what the words agnostic and atheist actually mean.

I am sure I am not the fist person to point this out on this thread but it probably bears repeating.

Agnostic means we lack knowledge

Atheist means we lack belief in gods.

It is perfectly possible to be both agnostic and an atheist, that's exactly what I am:

I am atheist in that I don't believe gods exist

I am agnostic in that I cannot base that position on knowledge, but in the face of the lack of evidence on the subject of gods I take the position that they don't exist.

I am also a humanist - that is a moral, ethical and philosophical stand point,

I am an atheist agnostic humanist.

So the reason you probably don't see mass outbreaks of athesit agnostic violence on here is because most atheists are agnostic and most agnostics are atheist and most people don't go round beating themselves up

Get it? The rest of your post is hollow bravado and self delusion, but none the worse for that it gave me a laugh

 

[Nathan Poe]

You can dispute (or not dispute) me all you want. That's not why I call Agnostics cowards. It's because they don't dispute Atheists --- and I'm not an Atheist.

Why should we dispute them? They don't bother us at all, and generally speaking, aren't nearly as insufferably obnoxious as the people we do dispute.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ya, ya --- go tell someone who'll believe you.

That's why I posted it on a public forum.

If you're telling me that you do not believe the world was created approximately 6,000-12,000 years ago, I'll retract my claim that you are a YEC.

Explain it civilly, and I may even throw in an apology for the misunderstanding.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Indeed I am aware of that. We prefer to call it adaptation, but we'll also accept micro-evolution.

What you've failed to address is that for the beetles to have diverged into 300 or 350,000 varieties in the few thousand years since the flood requires a lot of macroevolution.

this is the inherent contradiction in this belief system. You dont accept the degree of evolution that would give rise to humans from an ape ancestor but in doing so you believe that the countless varieties of beetle derived from a handful of "God's taxon"s which requires a much much MUCH greater degree of evolution than is accepted by mainstream biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Get it? The rest of your post is hollow bravado and self delusion, but none the worse for that it gave me a laugh

Well you can laugh at this too:

I don't buy that atheists-can-be-agnostics junk at all. Nor do I buy that Imma-weak/strong-agnostic copout, either. Especially by those who put down [strong] Biblical institutions because they don't cater to current scientific interpretations. It's okay for a person to be a "strong agnostic," but no one can claim to be a "strong Christian"?

 

[AV1611VET]

this is the inherent contradiction in this belief system. You dont accept the degree of evolution that would give rise to humans from an ape ancestor but in doing so you believe that the countless varieties of beetle derived from a handful of "God's taxon"s which requires a much much MUCH greater degree of evolution than is accepted by mainstream biology.

Occam's Razor.

Consider the inverse --- you want me to accept the fact that beetles show millions of years of micro-evolution, and by so doing throw out:

• a literal interpretation of Genesis
• the doctrine of Original Sin
• ex nihilo Creation
• et. al.

No, thanks --- I made a commitment to my Savior 26 years ago, based upon what He gave us in writing; and I'm not going to abandon that commitment if there were five times the species of beetles currently on the earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, CACTUSJACK, just off the record, what goes through your mind when you see people here calling the authors of the Scriptures "ignorant goat herders"? I'm on that goofy fstdt site as [supposedly] putting down the Hebrew language, but I never see anyone challenge an Atheist when they regularly use anti-Semite language. I'm telling you, my friend, there's not a person in Helsinki who'll regularly stand up to these guys and their blasphemy of all things sacred, but us Christians.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Occam's Razor.

Consider the inverse --- you want me to accept the fact that beetles show millions of years of micro-evolution, and by so doing throw out:

• a literal interpretation of Genesis
• the doctrine of Original Sin
• ex nihilo Creation
• et. al.

No, thanks --- I made a commitment to my Savior 26 years ago, based upon what He gave us in writing; and I'm not going to abandon that commitment if there were five times the species of beetles currently on the earth.

So you dont accept my argument not because it is a flawed or invalid argument, but because it is inconsistent with your belief system.
this n00b hath experienced uberpwnage.

You cant have your cake and eat it too. either evolution can do a lot or it is severely limited. Oh and by the way, according to wikipedia, some estimates put the number of beetles at 5 to 8 million meaning there could be 22 times the number of beetle species currently known. Thats a lot of microevolution for a few thousand years.