I don't see how I'm mixing metaphors. 

I asked for you to muster some words for those intangible thoughts you have because everyone has them. It's that little thought or feeling you have about something, but you can't seem to find the right words to describe it. Hence "intangible." 

Being Swedish and being philosophical are two different things. Philosophical can have a broad spectrum of classifications based on religion or whatever. Being Swedish is whether or not you physiologically possess a gene that is tied to Swedish ancestry, or Viking ancestry for that matter, since you mentioned that. I'm discussing the possibility of God or no God, and not knowing if God exists. Not if you're black or white, or tall or short. 

And yeah, theism is more of a fairy tale. 

Agnosticism is a lazy excuse because you do possess the capability of experiencing different paranormal or supernatural situations but choose not to acknowledge or study them. You also have to consider the definition of paranormal or supernatural. Let's break those words down: Para (latin) - Above, against, counter, outside - and Normal; Super (latin) above or beyond - and Normal. However, the direct definition of both is an experience or situation that lies outside of normal occurrence or scientific explanation. In that case, a relatively common scientific experience can be considered supernatural or paranormal but we don't have the advancement to explain it yet. 

And I asked to explain each category with respect to what you believe you are. Are you an atheist? Theist? or agnost? I apologize for not explaining that more thoroughly.

Consider the term "Possibilianism." It's a school of thought that lies outside of agnosticism, theism, and atheism. It's based on the premise that many different things can hold many different explanations yet none of the are entirely correct nor incorrect. From my inexperienced opinion, I would say that Possibilianism is very parallel to quantum mechanics. Take Schroedinger's Cat for example.  


Think outside the box. 

First a comment about the mistake of trying to get a more accurate idea of the meaning of a word by analysing it into its etymological components. That does not necessarily get you closer to the precise meaning of the word as it is actually used, only about its origin, which may or may not correspond closely to its current usage.

"Capability of experiencing different paranormal or supernatural situations"?? That statement only makes sense if you assume such things actually exist. Maybe you mean "able to observe or experience things which you can't explain at the time you experience them", but that would apply to everyone.

Most rational scientifically inclined people would simply say 'unexplained', which is more accurate than using the terms 'supernatural' or 'paranormal', which beg the question.

The only sense in which 'agnostic' is lazy is when used with respect to things which are, in fact, open to a useful degree of clarification with a modest amount of research and thought, such as "God", which is a primitive idea which really does not deserve the regard in which it is still held.

Atheist is simply the default position, in the absence of any evidence pointing to anything corresponding to any of the God figures described by the various faiths. All we have, at best, are some unexplained reports of various phenomena, which could be plausibly explained by a whole slew of 'possibilities', from alien visitors to the wilder 'supernatural' ideas of God, or Gods, or Demons.

Atheism is not normally the starting point for a world-view, except in the sense of not pre-supposing a God. Apart from the person who simply doesn't care, and has never been indoctrinated into a faith, it is typically one of the consequences of an honest investigation of what is known about our 'reality', it implies neither optimism or pessimism, in itself.

Hope that helps.

Atheism is a position, it says nothing about the positive or negative outlook an individual may have on life. MOST atheists I know are POSITIVE that humans can do better than believing in fictional utopias. Just like if you wanted to study the stars you'd us a telescope and not a kaleidoscope.

Theism IS a fools thought, AND pessimistic. It presumes that we cannot find natural answers so "therefore god". Atheism is positive in that it leaves the door open for future natural answers we might find. Theism is pessimistic in that it assumes an answer without facts to back it up.

"agnostic" is not a stand alone word. It was coined by Thomas Huxley. But in it's literal prefix "a" meaning without, and suffix "gnostic" meaning knowledge, DOES not say either way what you have knowledge about. IT IS A QUALIFYING WORD, NOT A POSITION.

One can think their might be a god, but not know if there is one, that would make them an agnostic theist, one who thinks their might be a generic god.

You can also have someone who does not believe in a god, but doesn't know for sure, an agnostic atheist.

I am a former theist who abandoned religion and it's ideas several years ago.

I became an atheist because after years of searching for god and believing in god, I found absolutely no evidence that one exists.

What I did find, was a bunch of people telling me what god was and how god thought. They all seemed to think that god shared their political and ideological convictions.

I rejected  religion because  it perpetuates a sense of self-hatred and constant guilt.

I reject rejected religion because of it's abhorrent view of humanity and the way that it believes that humanity is lost without a god.

I rejected religion because of it's bizarre ideas of morality.

I rejected religion because it feeds people delusions of grandeur and discourages critical thinking and inquiry.

I also disagree that Atheism is a pessimist dream.  Try grabbing some books on physics, astronomy, biology, history and anthropology. The world became a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more mysterious and a whole lot more interesting when I took god out of the picture. It took away my own feelings of self-importance and allowed me to understand how little we actually know about things.

Darwin was not being a pessimist in his quest to find the origin of the species. He was searching for truth.

I'll never understand how so many people haven't a clue what agnosticism means.

It is in the dictionary... how is it that people have such wild and completely hogwash definitions of the word? It would be different, I suppose, if everyone agreed on the same hogwash definition and we could just change what the word means. The problem with this one is that it seems to change meaning entirely from person to person. Certainly when used by people who want to turn everything into a spiritual woo-woo conversation about what is "reality".

I know.

That's what led you to making the mistake.

So, you presume I have them too?

That's projection.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but, can you give me an example, so that I can figure out if I have some thoughts that you would categorize as such? 

That's compatible with my assertion that being an atheist (non theist) and being a theist as 2 different things. Just as being a skydiver and being one who doesn't skydive, are completely different states of being.

There's no correlation.

That's the point.

Opposing views does not make a correlation between them.

There exists a confict, or incompatibility between them.

Making a correlation that they're both 'views' is superfluous.

Incorrect.

None of those are necessary to be classified as Swedish.

I understand what you've managed to unnecessarily convolute.

You're merely 'projecting' again.

The burden of proof that I'm lazy, and that I do possess the capabilties you list, is on you to prove.

Not me to convince you otherwise.

You're also very presumptuous, and mistaken.

I don't have to do anything of the sort.

And I answered you very precisely, and correctly.

You assign superfluous meanings to those basic 'states' of being/not being.

I don't.

You're the one with the problem, not me.

Another superfluous term, for what is probably intrinsic in humans, as a species.

Yawn...

Good one.

Why, because a new poster comes in starts redefining terms and meanings? And redefining what I already clearly understand better than he does?

I should encourage people into making grey areas out of black and white, in order to appear more friendly?

I'm not a politician...

I actually enjoy it when redneF goes after the irrational theists positions.

Please define theism, agnosticism, and atheism.

The point is that you simply define the term, and then, the term either applies to you or it doesn't. Asserting that none of them "hold weight" suggests incoherency. If you fit the definition of the word, then that label applies to you. You do not "choose" to wear that label. 

Wow, what a semantic mess.

You forgot to define "natural." The term is "supernatural," not supernormal. Something that is "natural" is something of this universe, or observable and testable reality. Ergo, something "supernatural" is something outside of observable and testable reality, something that cannot be evaluated by science. And, it does not just mean that our current understanding of science is insufficient to study the phenomena, it means that it CAN'T be evaluated by science, ever. In the way I define it, agnosticism is not a lazy excuse; rather, if you are not an agnostic, you are irrational. Paranormal generally just means something that is currently unexplained by science. It does not claim whether it can ultimately be explained or not.

Breaking down a word into its components does not necessarily grant you the most popular definition of the term nor the definition used amongst philosophers. Even with these definitions, your assertion that we "do possess the capability of experiencing different paranormal or supernatural situations" but agnostics are just  too "lazy," is unjustified.

Most people that frequent this forum are agnostic atheists.

P or -P. All clear assertions are either true or false.

This does not contradict theism, agnosticism, or atheism.

Quantum physics? You are committing category errors of the most incoherent kind.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100%, I just think you're a ray of fucking sunshine

 If only I was your age I would date you in a heartbeat.

 If you saw pics of me.....well, that would also be a reason to be an atheist.

There can't be a god who allows you to have a crooked nose(me), missing teeth(me) and the social skills with women of Jerry Luis in the Nutty Professor.

HEY LADY!

Don't you steal my material, YES I DID TYPE THAT!

Becoming Free

Blame it on my parents.  They always told me to "think for yourself”.  I doubt they ever considered what would happen if I really did that. 

Now, I suspect what they meant was, "Think what we tell you but do it in your own words."  Too late.  When I was 13, I began to question everything and soon the total absurdity of religion became apparent. 

Because I have been “encouraged” (forced) to read the bible several times, it was easy for me to see the contradictions in the book, what christians professed to believe, and how they really lived.

When I refused to go with them to their church, they said they would "Make me go." 

I asked them, “How are you going to make me? How will forcing me to attend church change my mind?”  Already, their attitude was starting to harden me against everything else they would tell me.

Their next idea was to have their minister talk to me.  I told them it was a waste of everyone's time.  They persisted and had him come to the house to “Talk some sense into me.”  (as if they ever works for anyone)  After about 15 minutes of him quoting the bible to me and me pointing out that he was either wrong in his quotes or showing him how it said something else in another place, he became very angry and told me I was going to hell.  I suspect it was because I knew the bible better than he did and was, at age 13, able to prove how ridiculous his arguments were.

I told him, “If there is a Hell I'll see you there.  Save me a nice place, OK?"  He said I was an impertinent, disrespectful child.  By then, I was angry myself and for the first time, I told a christian that he was a hypocrite, a liar, and a fool.  My parents insisted that I apologize.  I refused and left the room to a lot of yelling and threats.

For the next four years, I heard about this at least once a week.  So the night I graduated high school, I left my parent's home and didn't see them again for well over a year.  By then, with the credits I had accumulated in high school and summer school,  I had completed a couple of years of college.  Fortunately, I was able to pay for this myself.  I was entering the army and wanted to try to make peace with them, but had to listen to the same old recriminations and arguments again. 

The next time I saw them was two years later when I was getting married.  After several years of an on-again, off-again relationship they finally agreed to just not discuss it any more.  I'd like to say that worked, but  subtle hints slowly became outright condemnation.  Then I took a job transfer from Ohio to Arizona, so family meetings were rare enough to become occasions for something other than contention.

What did I learn?  Even your family can turn against you if you refuse to share in their illusions.  There are times, if you are to become your own person, you must stand firm in what you know to be true.

I see that all gods were created by man to solve the unknown. There is no substantial proof which could convince me otherwise, that there is a creator.

I believe that if there is a god no one has every spoken to this deity. No one has every seen them. This deity has never exposed their self this world.

For this reason I am a buddhist. There is no beginning or end, everything recycles.

I'm sorry if this comes across as an insult, but you tried to "debunk" the bible? I can't imagine you put much effort in to the debunking process.

I mean no ill will toward you, I just find your comments above quite ridiculous.

What you have is "faith" because there is no truth(*) to the bible other than what you give in to it. It's a con game and in order for the con to work you need to believe in it.

* truth = what I mean by truth is that while there might be some factual references to various areas of history in the bible, I believe 90% of it is myth based, 9% is opinion based and 1% is true.

Nope. None taken. But I would still love to hear your point of view on the bible with out using faith as your "proof"

Ah, but you see, you use only faith and opinion as your proof, which is no proof at all; I use logic, reason, facts, data, historical references, astronomical charts, arcealogical findings, linguistic examination and secular documentation as evidence. I don't really make the vague and insubstantial juxtaposition of "proof." 

But I'm game. Lets start with your signature. "The God of Abraham is a vague, illiterate and ignorant creation of man." And lets compare that to the first chapter of Genesis, since all I have to do is copy and past my own findings on that from my website. Here is what the "ignorant" "illiterate" Moses wrote about the creation of life, the universe and everything in 1513 B.C.E. Each of the footnotes will take you to an explanation of that verse at my website. Use your back function to return here after carefully, of course, contemplating each annotation.

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [1]

2. And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. [2]

3. And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. [3]

4. And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided between the light and the darkness. [4]

5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening, and there was morning -- the first day. [5]

6. And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it be a division between waters and waters. [6]

7. And God made the expanse, and divided between the waters that are under the expanse and the waters that are above the expanse; and it was so. [7]

8. And God called the expanse Heavens. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a second day.

9. And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry [land] appear. And it was so.

10. And God called the dry [land] Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11. And God said, Let the earth cause grass to spring up, herb producing seed, fruit-trees yielding fruit after their kind, the seed of which is in them, on the earth. And it was so. [11]

12. And the earth brought forth grass, herb producing seed after its kind, and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in them, after their kind. And God saw that it was good.

13. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a third day.

14. And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens, to divide between the day and the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; [14]

15. and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth. And it was so.

16. And God made the two great lights, the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night, -- and the stars. [16]

17. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth,

18. and to rule during the day and during the night, and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a fourth day.

20. And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls, and let fowl fly above the earth in the expanse of the heavens. [20]

21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living soul that moves with which the waters swarm, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good. [21]

22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth.

23. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a fifth day.

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth living souls after their kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after their kind. And it was so. [24]

25. And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind. And God saw that it was good. [25]

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over the whole earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth. [26]

27. And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [27]

28. And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth.

29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb producing seed that is on the whole earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree producing seed: it shall be food for you;

30. and to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth on the earth, in which is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so.

31. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning -- the sixth day. [31]

Wait! Wait! Wait!....

You want to use the bible as a reference for this discussion? OK. First prove that the christian bible is the actual word of god.

It isn't. Didn't you know that?

   Depends on which theist you ask. 

See even being sure of your favorite doctrines apparently doesn't carry much weight .....even with other theists.  Ha ha !   Oh, the irony !!!

                                                   Would now be a good time to suggest that you get back on your lithium ?

                                         Perhaps if you'd care to elaborate ?  You had a point to make ?

      Well I've grown accustomed to nonsensical responses made by theists so it's really hard for me to separate those who are simply trying to distract me from those who are dead on serious.

             Ramapithicus was reclassified as an ancestor to modern orangutangs.   Orangutangs have evolutionary ancestors as well   .....as do horses, lions, whales, etc. 

    Australopithecus has a more muddled role to play as it is apparently believed to be an evolutionary jumping off point for more than one type of primate ( including proto humans ).    If you still believe that there is some sort of anti religious agenda driven deception involved then feel free to direct me to a reputable source.

  I was an art major in college and not involved with science courses so science to me is nothing more than .....science.    I don't worship science anymore than I worship art.

Ramapithecus and Australopithecus are perfect examples of the power of empiricism applied to modifiable hypotheses. Nothing is entirely certain. Mistakes can be corrected. New data can always be incorporated. 

You're obviously not stupid yet you endlessly refuse to comprehend the inevitable meanderings of methodological naturalism applied by humans to multiple complex and layered environments, all of which we have only begun to piece together in the past couple of hundred years. Why do you insist on pretending the scientific method is not the only reliable way we have of understanding the knowable universe? If you know some other way that is not bald assertion, do divulge it.  

I agree with you in one sense. Many theories are taught in school as concrete fact when they should be taught as hypotheses more or less supported by available evidence. I think it would help the kids to know how to know. I don't think I was ever taught the mechanism of scientific empiricism growing up and to my mind this tool is the most important element in any study of material reality. 

That won't be necessary, it is fairly obvious. You are an idiot. You assume the Bible is wrong without knowing anything about it and while refusing to investigate it. That makes you a willful idiot.

Herod lived hard and fast, so not surprising Josephus said of his painful death: "an intolerable itching of the whole skin, continuous pains in the intestines, tumours in the feet as in dropsy, inflammation of the abdomen and gangrene of the privy parts, engendering worms, in addition to asthma, with great difficulty in breathing, and convulsions in all his limbs." - The Jewish War, I, 656 (xxxiii, 5).

The problem with the dating of his death when considering Bible chronology is that some put his death in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. based primarily upon Josephus' history. In dating Herod's being appointed as king by Rome Josephus uses a consular dating, which is a location of events occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this method Herod was appointed as king in 40 B.C.E., but another historian Appianos placed the event at 39 B.C.E.

Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem at 37 B.C.E. but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey which was in 63 B.C.E. (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) So in that case the date of Herod taking the city of Jerusalem would be 36 B.C.E. so 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans and 34 years after he took Jerusalem (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) would indicate the date of his death as 2 or 1 B.C.E.

It might be that Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession year method which was the case with the kings of the line of David.

If Herod's was appointed king by in 40 B.C.E. his first regnal year would probably begin at Nisan 39 to Nisan 38 B.C.E. and if counted from the capture of Jerusalem in 37 or 36 B.C.E. his first regnal year would have started in Nisan 36 or 35 B.C.E. so if Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem and those years are counted both according to his regnal year his death would have been 1 B.C.E.

In The Journal of Theological Studies (Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284), W. E. Filmer indicates that Jewish tradition says that Herod's death occurred on Shebat (January - February) 2

Josephus stated that Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]). There was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian) and so some conclude that this was the eclipse mentioned by Josephus, but there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E. about three months before Passover on January 8 (January 10, Julian) 18 days before Shebat 2 the traditional day of Herod's death.

There was also another partial eclipse on December 27 (December 29, Julian).

Most scholars date Herod's death as 4 B.C.E. citing the March 11 eclipse as proof and so place the birth of Jesus as early as 5 B.C.E., but that eclipse was only 36 percent magnitude and early in the morning. The other two taking place in 1 B.C.E. would both fit the requirement of having taken place not long before the Passover. The one of December 27 would have been observable in Jerusalem but not as a conspicuous event. Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses (p. 343), says the moon was passing out of the earth's shadow as twilight fell in Jerusalem so by the time it was dark the moon was shining full. That particular one isn't included in the Manfred Kudlek and Erich Mickler listing. I personally think you can rule that one out because it is uncertain that it was visible in Jerusalem.

The January 8, 1 B.C.E. was a total eclipse where the moon was blacked out for 1 hour and 41 minutes and would have been noticed. (Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany; 1971, Vol. I, p. 156.)

Also the calculation of Herod's age at the time of death is thought to be about 70, according to Josephus and he received his appointment as governor of Galilee (generally dated 47 B.C.E.) when he was 15, though scholars think that to be an error that should read 25. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Though Herod has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and not the most reliable source. The most reliable source is the Bible itself.
The evidence is pretty clear that Herod likely died in the year 1 B.C.E. as Luke (don't give me no shit about Luke!) says that John began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Luke 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. They (the Romans) didn't use the accession year method os the 15th year would have run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E.

John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry in the spring of that year (Luke 1:35-36) Jesus was born in the fall of the year and was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized (Luke 3:21-23) putting his baptism in the fall - about October of 29 C.E. Counting back about 30 years would put us at the fall of 2 B.C.E., the birth of Jesus. Daniel's prophecy of "70 weeks" points to the same time (Daniel 9:24-27 From the year 455 B.C.E. when King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, gave the order to rebuild the wall of the city of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8) to 29 C.E. when Jesus was baptized was 69 weeks or 483 years.