GENERATE YOUR OWN LIVE TRACKER NOW!Critics of the term "agnostic" claim that there is nothing distinctive in being agnostic because even many theists do not claim to know with certainty that a god exists—only that they believe it to be true. Under this asserted distinction between the words "belief" and "knowledge," agnosticism has recently started suffering from terminological ambiguity. While critics maintain the distinction is not contrived; others reject the distinction as trifling. By contrast, compare:"I believe God exists" means that "I know God exists". "I believe God exists" can still mean "I don't know if God exists". If this distinction is accepted, the term agnostic becomes orthogonal to theism without further qualifiers, and many qualifiers become contradictory unless the distinction is accepted. If this distinction is ultimately accepted by the larger public, the group formerly described by the term will again find themselves without a label, because the qualifiers provided would be inappropriate for their philosophy.Recently suggested variations include:Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of god(s) is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence. A strong agnostic would say "I don't know, and neither do you." Weak agnosticism (also called mild agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God(s), but since any God(s) that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway. Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God(s) as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence. Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God(s), but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs) Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of god(s), and do not believe in god(s).[5]And where will it all go AFTER christianty? I do not doubt that people have religion[s], but there is no rememdy for the feeling of fear of so many who 'INHERIT' (is that what really gets you people really thinking, that there is more? A heaven, a hell, a Vahalla, well there isn't, and their never will be. Make the best of what you got NOW!) an earth and then reply that they have no idea how to keep it safe. That is not being meek, but being ignorant. How can a religion, from any nation impose RULES {rules without proof(more than one example in the same form)} of what is to be done until the end of a culture's existance. I personally believe in respect to a culture and/or philosophical intellect will bring a person great success, but I do not tolerate violence as a final answer, it takes too much effort, and for that judgement alone, nulls out any prophetical humana you can muster or judge me by. Good Day.
eTrade Super Bowl Commercial: Talking Baby Rents a Clown
eTrade Super Bowl Commercial: Talking Baby Rents a Clown
To all the obssesive fathers out there, It's the SUPERBOWL!!!