Rick L

I was having a conversation on Facebook with the admin of an Atheist page. They posted a picture (as most of those pages do) that defined Gnostic as "Claims to have Evidence" and Agnostic as "Does not claim to have evidence".

I pointed out that their definition was incorrect - that it is not 'Evidence', but 'Knowledge' that is the key to the definition of Gnostic/Agnostic. They replied saying that in order to have Knowledge, one must also have Evidence. I responded that since there is no evidence either way, then using their 'definition', the terms Gnostic and Agnostic could not be used regarding religion. They started name calling, blah blah, it went on for a while.

When asked, I define myself as a Gnostic Atheist. I feel that it's all a big fiction, and I'm as certain of my choice as it is possible to be. I do not have any doubts, I don't feel the need to sugar coat it, or be wishy washy about it. There is simply no god. To me, that is a 'Gnostic' position, and it threw me when another supposed 'atheist' decided to say that I would have to present 'evidence' to allow me to have that position.

What do you think? Does Gnostic/Agnostic refer to/require 'Claiming/Not Claiming to have Evidence'?

It came out either in the late 70's or early 80's. There was an alien stalking people in the woods, and it would hunt them, than throw round disks that would attach to the people they hit.

It was terrible and cheesy, and I want to see it again. ;-)

Wow, I had a really fun interesting question, and they forced a login after I wrote it all up, and then erased it after I logged in.

I guess I just have to make up something interesting. Did you know ... that an anagram for 'There is no god" is 'Eroding Ethos'?

What is going to happen to the people that are pregnant? Will their children be Raptured with them, or will they be forced to be left behind because they still have their 'original sin'?

If they will be taken up, is there some cutoff? What about people that are only a month Pregnant? A Week?

If they are going to be left behind - isn't that mass murder?

(No, I don't think it's coming either - I'm just looking for the religious person's (or anyone's) perspective on the above topic)

There's no need to answer here if you don't believe it. I'm not trolling or trying to criticize you for your beliefs - I really do just want to see if there are people who actually believe it.

Again - don't reply if you don't believe - I just want to see who actually does believe it.

You know who I mean. You ask questions aimed at a specific group, but you have so many of them blocked that you can't get a 'real' answer?

I know I only block the really offensive people, like the Holocaust Deniers and the Racists. How about you?

Some theists (I'm not going to label them as any one particular type) post questions here everyday asking where atheists get their morals from.

Does this infer that they think morality is impossible without religion? If so, do you or they think that everyone was immoral before your religion gained popularity?

If morality did exist before your religion, then why can't we atheists be just as moral as you theists?

*Note: I will give no 'thumbs down' to anyone who answers, even the trolls..

Would you use that machine?

Below is what evolution is. If you have a problem with evolution, you have a problem with one (or more) of these 12 points. Which one is it? Provide evidence that the point is incorrect.

*NOTE* "God Did It" is *NOT* evidence, and is not a valid answer. "Prove it" is not a valid answer - each of these have been proven scientifically, and are heavily documented.

Variation:

1) Variation exists in all populations

2) Some of that variation is heritable

3) Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self replicating molecules that form templates for making protiens

4) Combinations of Genesthat did not previously exist may arise via "crossing over" during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome

5) Copying errors (mutations) can also arise because the self-replication process is of imperfect 9though high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool

Selection:

6) Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunites, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives

7) Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism's ofspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a poulation; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.

8) "Sampling errors" can occur in populations taht alter the relative frequency of the various alleles for reasons other than survival/reproduction advantages

9) Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population

Speciation:

10) Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favor" differnet traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.

11) a new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when a sub-population acquires characteristics which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternate population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.

Sufficiency:

12) the combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of life forms; over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain the diversity of life observed on Earth, both in what is directly seen at present, and indirectly through geologic evidence from the fossil record.

That's what evolution IS. If you have a problem with evolution, you have a problem with one (or more) of these 12 points. Which one is it? Provide evidence that the point is incorrect. *NOTE* "God Did It" is *NOT* evidence.

Whille the Origins of Life are a question of interest, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life itself.

Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variation may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid points of conjecture - But without EVIDENCE, they are not SCIENCE.

If you tell me that "God created Himself" - then why do you have a problem with people who think the Universe created itself, and can't we just leave the Magic Invisible Sky Wizard out of it?

If you answer that "God has always existed", then why do you have a problem with others saying the Universe has always existed, and can't we just leave the Magic Invisible Sky Wizard out of it?

I don't remember much about it, but it's been bugging me. There was a song in the 70's, about a girl who was lost in her own world, and loved the radio. At the end of the song, some boy that she liked disappeared, and he's somehow trapped in her radio? it was kind of a creepy song, and I'd like to hear it again.