The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

HEROHAMO wrote:We can all agree that there was a beginning to it all.

langleyparkjoe wrote:I understand what Cappo and Hero are both saying here but just looking at the human anatomy and our insides and how things are done like urinating and pooping.. I find it hard to believe that it "just happened" and here we are. LOL.

There had to be a first, I mean you can't go past number one to get to the other numbers.. by that reasoning alone I believe in God. Am I right, hell if I know but TO ME it makes more sense to believe in that instead of we just popped up out of the blue. lol.

When I look at the religious question as it really puts itself to concrete men, and when I think of all the possibilities which both practically and theoretically it involves, then this command that we shall put a stopper on our heart, instincts, and courage, and wait-acting of course meanwhile more or less as if religion were not true Since belief is measured by action, he who forbids us to believe religion to be true, necessarily also forbids us to act as we should if we did believe it to be true. The whole defence of religious faith hinges upon action. If the action required or inspired by the religious hypothesis is in no way different from that dictated by the naturalistic hypothesis, then religious faith is a pure superfluity, better pruned away, and controversy about its legitimacy is a piece of idle trifling, unworthy of serious minds. I myself believe, of course, that the religious hypothesis gives to the world an expression which specifically determines our reactions, and makes them in a large part unlike what they might be on a purely naturalistic scheme of belief.] till doomsday, or till such time as our intellect and senses working together may have raked in evidence enough, --this command, I say, seems to me the queerest idol ever manufactured in the philosophic cave. Were we scholastic absolutists, there might be more excuse. If we had an infallible intellect with its objective certitudes, we might feel ourselves disloyal to such a perfect organ of knowledge in not trusting to it exclusively, in not waiting for its releasing word. But if we are empiricists [pragmatists], if we believe that no bell in us tolls to let us know for certain when truth is in our grasp, then it seems a piece of idle fantasticality to preach so solemnly our duty of waiting for the bell. Indeed we may wait if we will, --I hope you do not think that I am denying that, --but if we do so, we do so at our peril as much as if we believed. In either case we act, taking our life in our hands. No one of us ought to issue vetoes to the other, nor should we bandy words of abuse. We ought, on the contrary, delicately and profoundly to respect one another's mental freedom: then only shall we bring about the intellectual republic; then only shall we have that spirit of inner tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is soulless, and which is empiricism's glory; then only shall we live and let live, in speculative as well as in practical things.

Cappster wrote:God either exists and is not all powerful, is all powerful and stand on the sideline while his creation suffers unbearable suffering, or doesn't exist.

welch wrote:Maybe some questions cannot be answered. Kant said, roughly, the human mind is so constructed as to as questions that the human mind cannot answer.

I find that reading most of Kant is like staring through a brick wall. This, however, clicks. seems right.

By means of scientific method, we can never know why there is "something" rather than "nothing". If there was a big-bang, nobody observed and recorded it for us.

Cappster wrote:There is also the possibility of the 4th dimension as explained by the one and only Carl Sagan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

Countertrey wrote:Jerry Dewitt, it appears to me, is a very confused man who spews much nonsense.

DarthMonk wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Jerry Dewitt, it appears to me, is a very confused man who spews much nonsense.

Who is more confused, DeWitt or this guy - The Very Rev. Gary R. Hall, Dean of the Washington National Cathedral?

Excerpt:

I don’t want to be loosey-goosey about it,” he says, “but I describe myself as a non-theistic Christian.”

Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle ... ory_1.html

Cappster wrote:

welch wrote:Maybe some questions cannot be answered. Kant said, roughly, the human mind is so constructed as to as questions that the human mind cannot answer.

I find that reading most of Kant is like staring through a brick wall. This, however, clicks. seems right.

By means of scientific method, we can never know why there is "something" rather than "nothing". If there was a big-bang, nobody observed and recorded it for us.

It is possible that the origin of life may never conclusively be discovered; however, we can possibly put enough of the pieces together to form an acceptable theory based on evidence (which we pretty much do now with the big bang theory). There is also the possibility of the 4th dimension as explained by the one and only Carl Sagan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

HEROHAMO wrote:

Cappster wrote:

welch wrote:Maybe some questions cannot be answered. Kant said, roughly, the human mind is so constructed as to as questions that the human mind cannot answer.

I find that reading most of Kant is like staring through a brick wall. This, however, clicks. seems right.

By means of scientific method, we can never know why there is "something" rather than "nothing". If there was a big-bang, nobody observed and recorded it for us.

It is possible that the origin of life may never conclusively be discovered; however, we can possibly put enough of the pieces together to form an acceptable theory based on evidence (which we pretty much do now with the big bang theory). There is also the possibility of the 4th dimension as explained by the one and only Carl Sagan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

I kind of wanted to stay away from this discussion.
But here I am.

I am going back to what I said before. The Big bang theory needs certain particles present for it to happen. Then the question for me comes to mind what created the ingredients necessary for the Big Bang theory to happen?

So it is not an acceptable theory for me as far as the creation of life is concerned. There may have been a big bang to create certain things. But it certainly is not the beginning of life in my mind.

Carbon testing is used to test how old things are. So Carbon must be one of the oldest things. But once again the question will come back to how did carbon get here? How did the Stars, the Universe, what was before the universe. Science is wonderful. Science has helped discover cures to diseases more efficient ways of living to benefit man kind. But it cannot answer the question of who created it all?

I am already convinced God did it. It says so in the Bible. He created the heavens and the earth.

Its been proven to me by him many a times in my life that he exists. So therefore I take him at his word when he says he created the Earth and life.

I am not a guy who gos to church. In fact I would much rather live a life where I could go to clubs and sleep with multiple women when I please. Eat steaks, Lobster, vacation when I want whatever. I smoke cigars drink liquor every other weekend. I am by no means a holy dude.

But there have been times in my life when I got down on my knees and asked for something. I prayed and prayed and prayed. Even though It was a nearly impossible task at the time for me. Then I worked at it and eventually I got what I wanted. Usually God gives u what you need or an oppurtunity. But in my case I actually got exactly what I wanted. All though I worked very hard at it. Just too many times for me to even try to deny that there is a God. Because believe me I would rather live life in the fast lane with no one judging me.

DarthMonk wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:
I smell an argument.

Yes, you do. You are agnostic... NOT atheist. As long as you have doubt... in either direction... you cannot be atheist.

I'll assume you are talking about me here when you say "you." Really doesn't matter but it will make things easier.

I am an agnostic. I am not an atheist. I am a totally on-the-fence agnostic. Some might say that simply makes me a pussy who lacks the courage of any conviction on the issue. That's fine with me if people want to look at it that way.

Can I be an agnostic (acknowledge unknowability on the issue) yet say "I think it is more likely there is a God than not?"

I have used the phrase "intellectual honesty" on this issue concerning thesits who say they know God exists. I also use it for atheists who say they know God does not exist.

I say DeWitt is simply displaying intellectual honesty. He is acknowledging unknowability (agnosticism is his conclusion) but says he currently believes it is more likely that no God exists than it is that a God does exist (atheism is his opinion).

It's quite simple.

Do you currently acknowledge unknowability for yourself? If not then I do not believe you wholeheartedly. Of course, I could be wrong.

If you do currently acknowledge unknowability for yourself I then ask, which way do you lean?

If you understand all this (and I'm pretty sure you do) then we are simply down to something like syntax and which dictionary we are using. If you are saying an agnostic can't lean either way then we simply have and unresolveable disagreement on the use of the words involved. #shrug

crazyhorse1 wrote:I am both an agnostic and an atheist, but am more comfortable with the word "atheist." Like everybody else, I don't know diddly about God (in spite of my training/studying, which has been considerable).

Deadskins wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:I am both an agnostic and an atheist, but am more comfortable with the word "atheist." Like everybody else, I don't know diddly about God (in spite of my training/studying, which has been considerable).

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

DarthMonk wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:I am both an agnostic and an atheist, but am more comfortable with the word "atheist." Like everybody else, I don't know diddly about God (in spite of my training/studying, which has been considerable).

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

It's not, of course. You either just don't get it or refuse to. To be an atheist is not to espouse (necessarily) a denial of the existence of god. Atheism is simply non-theism. A very strong form of it does deny the possibility of god existing.

I am a non-theist. I do not hold the belief that god exists. This is different than holding the belief that god does not exist. That, in turn, is different from flatly averring that god does not exist. Additionally, since I say I do not know (that is what I call intellectual honesty), I am also an agnostic.

It's really pretty simple once you actually read the words.

crazyhorse1 wrote:What amazing ability and power I have. If I say the word "God," he pops into existence. Now I'll create a unicorn--I don't know diddly about unicorns.

Cappster wrote:Agnostic Atheist- Lack of belief in god

Gnostic Atheist- Knowing that god does not exist.

Both do not see the evidence for god's existence, but an agnostic is open to the possibility that they may be wrong while an gnostic is not. It's kind of like a person of faith believing that god exists compared to knowing that god exists.

Cappster wrote:Agnostic Atheist- Lack of belief in god

Gnostic Atheist- Knowing that god does not exist.

Both do not see the evidence for god's existence, but an agnostic is open to the possibility that they may be wrong while an gnostic is not.
It's kind of like a person of faith believing that god exists compared to knowing that god exists.