oh, if i sound negative as regards religion then you indeed do have me pegged. i see religious dogma as one of the most if not the most causual effects of most of what's wrong with humans in general. i go out of my way to attack religion as others might attack desease or polution simply because i think the world would be a healthier and more peaceful place to live were religious dogma that was the source of the crusades, the inquisition, the salem witch trials and now this jihad we must all endure were all brought into the light that it deserves.



you're the one who's resorted to name calling. and now we can add your use of 'childish'.



you don't own this or any thread. mingle does. this thread is part of an open forum. when you post in open forum you can expect openness, not simply what suits you. and yes, indeed. you do have a little scroll wheel on that mousey thingy. works great for scrolling right on past posts you'd care to ignore. and after all this arguement you're just now discovering that???

mr. negative? and you want civil discourse without labels?



well being one who does not allow mingle or anybody else provide my options i wouldn't know. i choose my options.



and i never said that. called you nothing whatsoever. simply gave you my take on how you described your thinking. i don't consider what is and is not 'capable of believing' as you put it. your words, not mine.



and as such, you don't meet my definition of an agnostic nor any dictionary definition that i'd accept. that you think it possible to one day know god suggests that you think god is knowable. and yet agnostic refers to the UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE.



and now you have my take on the topic.



seems you're the only one here calling anybody anything. 'mr. negative' as i recall. you'll have the final say when i'm done sayin'.

i've never agreed with this description. i think 'agnostic atheist' to be a misnomer. as you yourself quoted, agnosticism regards what in unknown AND UNKNOWABLE meaning there can be no evidence. and dawkins has everybody screwed up on these definitions.

we don't. you and mh brought up dictionary definitions for labels.

not knowing does not make you agnostic. agnostic means unknown AND UNKNOWABLE. you obviously think that you can know god as that is the entire thrust of your original post. agnosticism actualy has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. gnostic means knowledge or what is knowable. agnostic, just the oposite. albert einstein often said that the human brain was incapable of knowing anything absolutely.

i'd put you in the category of 'weak atheist'. one who does not think there is convincing evidence for god but who could be convinced if evidence were produced. an agnostic thinks no such evidence can ever be produced.



simple really. they don't know now. they believe. were you a true agnostic you'd realize that one can only know that which he experiences himself.

there are several dictionaries and several definitions for each word in each dictionary. mh cited one definition for each word. in fact there are categories of atheisim, strong atheist, weak atheist, etc., and few atheist would use the word 'belief', as mh's chosen definition does, in describing their thoughs on god's existance.



hey, you began a thread in an open religious forum. expect anything.



k. here's a story about finding god. found him listening to my parents as a child. lost him after returning from vietnam.

hahaha. the atheist/agnostic forum has become a joke i guess. no fun when so manny agree.

lol. you just got religion crammed in your face through the back door. and she used wiki to do it. hey cowboy, did you see that? get off quoting all tha scripture and wiki us to death.

yep, you're wrong. many atheists are open to the possibility of god's existence. they simply will not consider god without some evidence. an agnostic does not even consider the possibility of god existing. we think that the human mind is incapable of knowing god, the afterlife or any supernatural phenomena.

i stand corrected so i'll rephrase in a manner even a true nascar fan can understand:

saying christianity is not about religion is not unlike saying nascar is not about racing in cars and trucks or whatever will bring in big bucks for the organizers. better, cowboy?

saying christianity is not about religion is not unlike saying nascar is not about cars.

human life is no more or less precious than any life.

i understood well that it was simply your experience. i simply related my own, quit different experience.



but one need not rely on a god to train morally. and of course not knowing what 'spiritual living' is i obviously would not bother training for it.



make senese to whom? i see the bible as nonsense so i've constructed my own rules for living an ethical life. doing so required a lot more thought than simply reading a bible and listening to ministers to form a moral compass.



i understand your thinking. i think differently.

of course, other than dieing you've experienced those other things so you know them and they require no belief. as far as dieing goes, call me overly hopeful but i do in fact have some doubt that i will die. extremely minute i'll admit but the speed at which medical science has been going i'm not at all sure that life must always end. so once again; belief is not required to know what i've experienced and not appropriate for anything i've not experienced. seems to work for you, not for me.

well no wonder we never seem to be on the same page jeannie. i've never read your book.

i answered this question of yours, jeannie.

"Can a mutation breed and produce similar mutations?"

happens quite often actually. skin pigmentation?

such as?