I think this may be my last comment. I've answered your questions multiple times and I still see you posting that no one has answered them.
Charles: I do not believe you ANSWERED my two main questions before Brian. You responded to them but ANSWERING is what you did THIS TIME.
Either you are not understanding the answers, refuse to understand because of your religious indoctrination or are being deliberately deceitful. In such case it would be pointless to continue.
You may have a point. However now that you and I appear to be on the same wavelength altho not on the same wave, we can talk.
- I find it rather humorous that you say I might not understand your answers. My point about that is that many if not most of them were diatribes rather than concise answers to the questions. This time you were brief and to the point. That makes for discussion.
- Using the word "indoctrination" is a word which is used to put down individuals that do not agree with you instead of responding to their points. Perhaps you did not intend this but that is what it is.
- Let's take the root of "indoctrination" which is really the Latin word docere, doctus which means "to teach".
- So INDOCTRINATION is what you have been taught although it is usually used to put down people.
- BCReason you have also been indoctrinated unless you have never learned a thing.
- Any teaching relating to your personal beliefs are "religious" as that is what the root word means.
- So you have had probably several indoctrinations at various times in your life, your latest one being an agnostic by my definition as have I
- 'Have I been brainwashed' is like asking if you have been brain-dirtied
- And no, I have no intention of EVER being deceitful nor did I.
- Brian, if I were to say that YOU "refuse to understand" would you be complemented or put down? That shows your indoctrination, that you think that those who disagree with you are REFUSING your knowledge. I am sure Mr. Obama thinks that about most Americans who seem ready to take him to task on November 2, 2010.
1. I do not a have 100% of the worlds knowledge. Less than 1%. That's Question number 1 answered.
2. God could exist in the knowledge I do not possess. That's Question number 2 answered. or more simply Yes!
"Are you happy? You now have an atheist that answered your pointless exercise. Now you can post that you have at least one atheist that answered your question."
Regardless of your sarcastic "are you happy" and "pointless excercise" comments you at least seem open to discuss rather than argue. Great! That does make me happier although by nature I am generally happy most of the time and I hope YOU are too.
Since you obviously got the POINT, then the "exercise" WAS NOT "pointless".
Again a flaming remark. [Why?]
I admit that there are BILLIONS of people that claim to have knowledge of God or gods. [Editor: God only refers to the name of Yahweh, the ONE God. I changed BC's "Gods" to "gods".]
Happy again? [Editor: Pointless sarcasm? (:-)]
So all you have really proven is I may be agnostic instead of an atheist.
[Editor: Obviously my questions were NOT a pointless exercise because BC obviously finally gets the point!]
Which really means nothing because you can be both and agnostic and an atheist. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
Charles: I tend to disagree with that statement as "atheists" in general DENY the possibility of the existence of a God. Agnostics are just not sure if there is or is not one. I find that an honest answer, admitting that you really do not know.
Agnostic is a statement of knowledge. Without the knowledge of gods.
Atheism is a statement of belief. Not believing in Gods
I tend to agree with this description of what an atheist is from the Wikipedia:
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[6"
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief." from Wikipedia
Here is what seems to be a rational approach to what an atheist really is.
The following quote is taken from the following website"
What is an Atheist? From http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-an-atheist-faq.htm
"Richard Watson states in his 1831 book, A Biblical and Theological Dictionary: “Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature.”
Robert Flint, in his 1885 book Anti-Theistic Theories states: “Every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God.”
The strong atheist, also known as an explicit atheist or a positive atheist, denies the existence of God or any other deities. This person’s views are based solely on what can be found to be true using the scientific method. Since the existence of God cannot be proven using science, the strong atheist concludes that God doesn’t exist.
The second type of atheist is the weak atheist, also known as an implicit atheist or a negative atheist. This person does not deny the existence of God outright, but rather claims a religious relativism. That is, she would claim that anyone’s belief can be true for that person, but she doesn’t believe in God herself.
An Atheistic Worldview What are the implications for a religious atheist? Without God, he arrives at the necessary philosophies of moral relativism and . But does his view line up with objective reality? And is there any evidence for a God?
Learn More About Atheism."
BCReason: Therefore if you have no knowledge of gods and no belief in gods then you are an agnostic atheist.
If you have no knowledge of gods and have belief or unsure in gods then you are an agnostic.
Personally I have knowledge of God. I went to Sunday school, church, Young peoples at B in C on Perry Rd. I was a member of Inter School Christian Fellowship at Crossley. Was a Deacon at my church. I've been to Hindu temple, Sikh temple. Read Case For Christ.
Charles: Having a knowledge "of God" is honest. There is a difference between knowledge, I would say, "about God" and "knowing God". Many have a knowledge about God, fewer have a knowledge of God as a person who exhibits personal traits just as we do. The difference is like YOU knowing your Mother and me knowing your mother.
YOU KNOW HER. I only KNOW ABOUT HER.
In all that I never found Evidence of God. I had questions that science answered better than religion. So lacking evidence and seeing superior answers in science I stopped believing.
Now Brian, this is you. Did you never think that the two are NOT mutually exclusive? Many great scientists including most of those who started the belief in a scientific method were believers and many are today. [More later.]
I haven't stopped looking, that's why I started these arguments with you. However I found rather than reasoned argument, censorship*, deceit, personal attacks, strawmen, prejudice.
Charles: Could it be because of your "atheistic indoctrination" that you thought that? Of course I censor because it is my blog and many of your comments were actually belittling. How can I discuss with you anything if all you do is belittle me and my points?What knowledge is gained by insulting another person. I hope you were not insulted and belittled even tho I disagreed with you. If you were I apologize. It is always the farthest from my thoughts to belittle anyone. "Deceit" is what you sit on! Everyone has at least one! (:-)
If you're not going to be at least honest there's no point in continuing.
I was honest from the start. Remember that someone else's idea of honesty may look like dishonesty if you disagree with it. You and I disagree but I knew it was not as much as your arguments indicated. Now I see the real you. I remember your teachers from Winger saying something like "Brian knows more about science than I do and I do not know how to answer him." I personally never felt that way. You were and are very keen when you are not being a "flamer".
As I hope you know BC, I love science and I always have been a very curious, "doubting Thomas" seldom accepting anything at face value. I came to know God not just about him and found that science and God are very compatible.
I look at Judaeo-Christianity as being an expose of "what" and of science as "how".
However these days science has often been taken over by bigots who instead of using the scientific method use insulting, firing, belittling and mocking of those who believe in an intelligent design. Therefore there is NO science when emotions and beliefs rule "proven fact" not theories but demonstrable facts.
*Fox news north can come to Canada I just don't want to be forced to pay for it.
So you would rather pay for the CBC like we are? (:-) I personally think we should cut back greatly on the CBC. It has great programs such as the CBC News is generally reliable but has bigotted interviewers from time to time who belittle the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali [sp?] who was as a Muslim female "circumcised" which is an obtrusive and cruel invasion of her body. Male circumcision on the other hand is like cutting off a mole, might temporarily hurt but not for long.
Most news media in Canada has a leftist bias. So much so that HonestReporting.ca Canada is kept in business reporting on the biassed and unfounded "reporting". When we have "news" I don't want someone's "views"! Just the facts! I think I can make up my own mind, thank you.
Remember if any payment goes on to have another channel aired it is generally payment TO THE GOVERNMENT not FROM the government. However often it is worthwhile for government in some areas to give tax breaks to encourage business to grow and that is okay and useful because jobs are provided for a community.
Brian, here is one issue you may not have run across. I have taken it from the scientist who wrote it on Amazon.com in reference to a DVD.
Darwin's Dilemma is the DVD.
Here is the description of contents.
Virtual museum of Cambrian fossils
Reference library of books on the Cambrian explosion, evolution, and intelligent design
Music from the original score of Darwin's Dilemma
More than 60 minutes of extra features
Product DescriptionDarwin's Dilemma examines what many consider to be the most powerful refutation of Darwinian evolution - the Cambrian fossil record.
Charles Darwin realized that the fossil evidence did not support his theory of gradual, step-by-step evolutionary development. He hoped that future generations of scientists would make the discoveries necessary to validate his ideas.
Today, after more than 150 years of exploration fossil evidence of slow, incremental biological change has yet to be excavated. Instead, we find a picture of the rapid appearance of fully developed, complex organisms during the outset of the Cambrian geological era. Organisms that embody the major animal body plans that exist today. This remarkable explosion of life is truly Darwin's Dilemma and is best explained by the existence of a transcendent intelligence.
Now the scientist's review: [Go to bottom of page.]
|By||Mark McMenamin "chronophile" (South Hadley, Massachusetts United States) - See all my reviews|
This video is an outstanding success. It presents the design argument better than anything I have seen before. From the perspective of a scientist informed about the raw data, the main thrust of the film is absolutely correct. Just as Darwin (to his credit) pointed out, a robust Cambrian Explosion destroys the concept of evolution by gradual natural selection. If anything, the Cambrian event seems even more abrupt than it did in Darwin's day.
I wrote to both James Valentine and Simon Conway Morris after, to my astonishment, seeing them appear in this video. Valentine, although no Intelligent Design proponent to be sure, admits that epigenetic transmission of information (i.e., heritable information not transmitted by nuclear DNA) really does happen. This has huge implications for how we understand evolutionary change.
Although Simon Conway Morris admits that we do not fully understand evolution, he claims that the Cambrian event is uncomplicated natural selection at play. How can this be, when the Early Cambrian Chinese fossil chordate Myllokunmingia appears comparable in complexity to a modern catfish? This is sudden appearance of complexity, not ordinary microevolution. Andy Knoll at Harvard has been quoted recently as saying that it is natural selection all the way. Please, gentlemen, it is time to think more broadly, and it is past time to provide a persuasive scientific basis for these opinions about the efficacy of natural selection.
This is not to say that there are no ancestor-descendant connections across the Cambrian boundary. Dolf Seilacher has argued quite a bit with me about the Ediacaran fossil organism called Spriggina. Seilacher sees this fossil as a weird vendobiont creature, whereas I have evidence that it is the trilobite ancestor:
This said, I agree with Seilacher that most Ediacarans are bizarre and not closely related to Cambrian animals.
To conclude, biotic change through time has certainly taken place but this change is not random mutation mediated by gradual natural selection. The scientific community needs to distance itself from the taint of Darwin's defunct, socially corrosive theory. On the other hand, the Intelligent Design community needs to be careful, lest it seem to be dictating to God how He can or cannot create. It would be theologically problematic and silly to presume to allow God to create in one way (instantaneous fiat), but not in another (change through time).
Finally, with the Cambrian event we have a scientific and intellectual challenge of the first order. We need all hands on deck to bring this ship to port. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes in "Silver Blaze," we need to see the value of imagination, imagine what might have happened, act upon the supposition, and perhaps in the end, find ourselves justified. Let us proceed. I wish to congratulate creationists for (finally) making a substantive contribution to scientific discussion.