Realm here

[Realmleader]

Hey there, Realm! I think you'll find that once in a while, the debate ere can be very stimulating and open. I hope you'll get a kick out of this place. And don't worry about some of these guys- their bark is much worse than their bite.

Bullshit.

Bring it on. My doG si reggid naht srouy.

---

Hi Realm, welcome to the forums.

Don't worry about Min, he already had 3 fundies for lunch today.

Gratz? I'm sure he feels fulfilled.

[Watson]

haha! Watson? Smarter than Sherlock? No way! Watson learned everything he knew from Sherlock, hence why I took the name.

Why Agnostic Christianity? Well, allow me to explain. Agnosticism is, at the base of it, the position of 'I don't know.' I don't know that Christ existed, that God is real, or that the teachings are correct. But that is true of everything; we as humans do not know anything for certain, and thus belief in God and the world around us is necessary. So do I know that Christianity is true? No. Do I believe it is? You bet your ass, I do.

I believe in the teachings of Chirst, in God as the Lord, and in the Bible as it is meant to be believed. Personal experiences in my life and the lives of those around me, those who have taught me, add to this belief and strengthen it in ways that come very close to knowledge. I believe I have a firm understanding of my relationship with God, and my place in this universeas it relates to Him and the teachings of Christ.

An Agnostic Christian is still a Christian.

[Realmleader]

haha! Watson? Smarter than Sherlock? No way! Watson learned everything he knew from Sherlock, hence why I took the name.

Why Agnostic Christianity? Well, allow me to explain. Agnosticism is, at the base of it, the position of 'I don't know.' I don't know that Christ existed, that God is real, or that the teachings are correct. But that is true of everything; we as humans do not know anything for certain, and thus belief in God and the world around us is necessary. So do I know that Christianity is true? No. Do I believe it is? You bet your ass, I do.

I believe in the teachings of Chirst, in God as the Lord, and in the Bible as it is meant to be believed. Personal experiences in my life and the lives of those around me, those who have taught me, add to this belief and strengthen it in ways that come very close to knowledge. I believe I have a firm understanding of my relationship with God, and my place in this universeas it relates to Him and the teachings of Christ.

An Agnostic Christian is still a Christian.

Thanks a bunch for clearing that up for me, it is nice to see a fellow Christian here, proof yet that this site is no more strict than the one I came from, and my being friend's with a former Mod probably has nothing to do with that. How about this then? Watson gets to the correct answer in a much more timely fashion, Sherlock beats around the bush looking for really complicated stuff, when sometimes it's a little more obvious.

[Watson]

Hehe, I don't know. I still maintain that Sherlock was a lot smarter and concluded things a lot faster, but Watson certainly had his moments. To quote:

"Good work, Watson. You've developed considerable deductive abilities of your own."

Anyway, it is always nice to see a fellow Christian here, I agree. There's quite a few of them here, and you'll find it's a very open community. Welcome aboard!

@Minimalist- You're right, Min. I prefer leaving the mess to itself.

[theVOID]

haha! Watson? Smarter than Sherlock? No way! Watson learned everything he knew from Sherlock, hence why I took the name.

Why Agnostic Christianity? Well, allow me to explain. Agnosticism is, at the base of it, the position of 'I don't know.' I don't know that Christ existed, that God is real, or that the teachings are correct. But that is true of everything; we as humans do not know anything for certain, and thus belief in God and the world around us is necessary. So do I know that Christianity is true? No. Do I believe it is? You bet your ass, I do.

I believe in the teachings of Chirst, in God as the Lord, and in the Bible as it is meant to be believed. Personal experiences in my life and the lives of those around me, those who have taught me, add to this belief and strengthen it in ways that come very close to knowledge. I believe I have a firm understanding of my relationship with God, and my place in this universeas it relates to Him and the teachings of Christ.

An Agnostic Christian is still a Christian.

In other words your beliefs are irrational. Nice work.

[Watson]

^In other words you don't understand my beliefs.? Nice work.

[theVOID]

Let's see what you have so far...

Your personal experiences (aka conformation bias)
Your family agree with you
You believe in the bible because the bible says it's true
You think you have a relationship with a wizard.
You think the wizard's son has taught you things.

Anything i missed?

---

Thanks a bunch for clearing that up for me, it is nice to see a fellow Christian here, proof yet that this site is no more strict than the one I came from

We have several *proud face*

As long as you don't troll, preach or refuse to contend points of discussion (aka the apologist shifting of the focus) then you'll do fine here.

We're nice people, really

[Watson]

Okay, let me see...

-I don't care what you label it,(in this case 'confirmation bias') my experiences are my own and i have used every reasonable faculty I possess to judge that they are believable experiences.
-Yeah, my family agress with me that there is a God. So? Social background and environment have no baring on this, so you can stop your analytical bullshit train right there.
-No, I believe in the Bible because I have found it to be true; but I don't expect you to understand that.
-And here we have the ultimate proof that you don't understand what I'm talking about; you refer to God as a 'wizard' and by doing so, misconstrue the nature of God entirely.
-He has. Your point?

[theVOID]

-I don't care what you label it,(in this case 'confirmation bias') my experiences are my own and i have used every reasonable faculty I possess to judge that they are believable experiences.

So you are saying that the reliability of your senses are better than that of the other billions of people who intuitively reach different conclusions? Surely not.

As fas as i am concerned the fact that one tends to seek out patterns related to their superstitions in their experiences and can do so regardless of what this superstition is or how contradictory it may be when compared to another group or individuals experience simply shows that the kind of 'standards' you are talking about are entirely inadequate in determining the truth of any such propositions. Any time a standard can bear contradictory conclusions it is obvious that the standard is insufficient.

-Yeah, my family agress with me that there is a God. So? Social background and environment have no baring on this, so you can stop your analytical bullshit train right there.

You were the one who weighed upon the importance of these situations for confirming your belief in your previous post. I don't give a shit about arguments from popularity, they are fallacies as any other. I simply pointed out the weight you seemed to attach.

Do you think that the fact people agree with you makes your belief more valid?

-No, I believe in the Bible because I have found it to be true; but I don't expect you to understand that.

Explain how you 'found it to be true'. I guarantee you that upon further examination any significance you may believe you have is rather mundane.

-And here we have the ultimate proof that you don't understand what I'm talking about; you refer to God as a 'wizard' and by doing so, misconstrue the nature of God entirely.
-He has. Your point?

They are both invocations of Magic, nothing more and nothing less. You can try to sophisticate it up all you like, but you just end up with a more complicated Wizard. All you have is this idea that Wizard solves all of your problems and answers all the big questions, but you have no valid reason to assume that such a being, call him God or Wizard, exists at all - let alone a way to discern between the Wizard doing magic and the God performing miracles.

Does it not bother you that i can replace the word God with Wizard in any argument for the existence of God, define the wizard as timeless, transcendental, supernatural, loving, omnipotent, omni-benevolent and say he wrote a book called King Arthur in which he came to earth as Merlin to teach the English King how to rule his people and in doing so have created a concept that is no more or less verifiable than your God?

So long as i define the Wizard as having the necessary attributes I could create a Wizard cult and obtain the same standard of subjective "evidence" you have for God too, we could even confirm our beliefs every time a convenient coincidence happens, and claim it is evidence for the existence of the loving Wizard, all the while ignoring the misses just like you.

[Edwardo Piet]

Realm,

Now, I'm not going to ask how your personal experiences are evidence of God. I'm going to ask how you think any personal experience can possibly be evidence for God. How is not any alternative more probable?

---

A quick question, how exactly does Agnostic Christian work?[referring to Watson] I am in my dorm right now, munching on McD's from last night, I laughed (mouth full, so it didn't end well ) and shook my head at the sight. I mean no offense, but it is air to admit I am skeptical. Just a quick elaboration (look at me using big words xD) on what your definition of Christian and Agnostic should clean it up.

Considering the fact you believe your own personal experience is why you believe in God, that cannot possibly be absolute proof because it's inductive at best. And because of the problem of induction, no amount of experience can prove something to be real. So from your position, it is only intellectually honest if you are agnostic on the matter of your belief. Claiming absolute knowledge when you believe via personal experience is irrational. It is only if you have analytic, deductive, proof that it could be possible to rationally be gnostic instead of agnostic. And, if you have analytic, deductive support for your belief as opposed to just personal experience, then the personal experience isn't needed at all because you have proof elsewhere (and as I said, personal experience can't be proof).