PaulConventionWV
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 16,041
"No" is the correct answer to whether I have a belief that you have a nickel in your pocket, because I have no such belief.
That's the problem, though. You don't know whether it's true or not, so saying you don't believe there is a nickel in my pocket is making a positive statement of fact, that you don't believe there is a nickel in my pocket, when you have no reason to believe one way or the other.
To clarify, if someone walks up to you on the street and asks if you believe he has a nickel in his pocket, it would be more reasonable to say "I don't know whether to believe that or not" than to say "I do not hold that belief" because saying you don't hold a belief is the same as claiming disbelief.
No, agnosticism is the belief that God's existence or nonexistence is unknowable. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God, but it doesn't denote a belief that God doesn't exist. The word comes from a-theism, meaning not theism, meaning a lack of a theistic belief. Unfortunately, the word has come to connote a belief that God doesn't exist, but that's not how I use the word.
We have differing definitions. I do believe erowe1 demonstrated that the leading dictionaries will disagree with you.
Because it isn't science. For the same reason, I wouldn't want a science teacher to start discussing Emily Dickenson's poetry.
How do you know it's not science? You were told? How do you know evolution is science? What you are doing is using the idea that evolution is true and is therefore science, to disqualify the alternatives from also being science. This is known as the 'No true scotsman' logical fallacy.
Would you favor the passing of legislation that prevented a science teacher from discussing Emily Dickenson's poetry? That's what this is all about.
Of course it is.
It is not observable, testable, or repeatable. Tell me what part of that is scientific.
And instead of believing the scientific community I'm supposed to believe a preacher who says it isn't?
The "scientific community" have become propagandists for the government. I hold them in lower esteem than preachers. Do you not realize just how much propaganda about evolution we are being bombarded with? When is the last time you have ever seen creation discussed in a favorable fashion on any TV show or news program? Why is it that our government says it's the only thing we are allowed to discuss in science class? Even if you believe it to be true, it should make you at least a little suspicious that our government is pushing it.
Last edited: