I once spoke with an agnostic.
Agnostic is a term defined by the biologist Thomas Huxley as irony against the Gnostics. Gnostic is the term for knower, so agnostic is the term for non-knowledge.
Thus, such a hilarious idea defines not wanting to accept knowledge that is contrary to it.
The Atheist, is in the etymology of the definition that God does not exist. In addition to not accepting knowledge on the subject, as an agnostic, the term Atheist defines the impossibility of existence.
An agnostic does not construct the possibility of ceasing to be an agnostic, that is, his system of thought is prejudiced. Prejudice is something preconceived and accepted without the possibility of alteration.
An agnostic does not believe in any part of the existence of divinity, defining that it is impossible to know something.
An individual stops being prejudiced when he accepts logical systems that may annul their decision.
Thus, every individual, to be rational, must have a position in which, using reason, he can change his view of the world. That is, of course, not to be arrogant.
If one individual proves right in what he says, and his grounds cannot overrule the other individual's logic, then one must accept the other's view as correct. Anything else is prejudice.
A religious person who follows biblical definitions has to have an open mind to reason, to understand things as they are. And the same Bible defines this for the individual.
For example, a believer has to have logical tools.
The agnostic has a definite problem in the general system of coexistence, he needs possible tools that can make him change his mind. idea, but he does not create these tools.
Thus, the agnostic has a problem in the social concept: the lack of belief!
Laws only exist if there is belief, and belief is something not stipulated by an agnostic.< br>In fact, every real agnostic is anarchist.
An agnostic defines that nothing generates sense, because if there were sense there would have to be God. If there is no sense, there is no law, if there is no law, there is no rule in fact, but imposition. And if there is imposition, every time I run away, I am correct. And even what is correct is not correct, because if there is no God, there is no right and wrong.
Thus, the agnostic has a clear problem of real experience, as he has no position on what is right and wrong.
If an agnostic defines right and wrong, he is against his own agnostic foundation.
For in order for there to be right and wrong, there must be a universal goal. Without a universal objective there is no right and wrong.
Thus, for an agnostic there is no error in racism, feminism, wars, destruction of nature, and any other action, because absolute truth cannot be defined, and without truth there is no right
Defining an agnostic that defines right and wrong would be the same thing as saying that a Christian does not believe in God, which would be irrational!
Right and wrong are absolute factors.
Whether right and wrong. wrong are not absolute, therefore right is not right, and wrong is not wrong!
Therefore, there is no right and wrong for the agnostic, because there is no absolute.
For as something is right, if you do not do you know it's right? Or is something wrong, if you don't know it's wrong?
How can this exist?
A true religionist is in search of the absolute, and thus needs to change his positions according to learning, but the agnostic determines not to there is a possibility of finding the absolute.
Religious people can define right and wrong by believing in the existence of right and wrong.
A bible verse is - Whoever thinks he knows something, still doesn't know how it should be known.< br>1 Corinthians 8:2.
Without religion there is no belief in right and wrong. For it takes a universal purpose to define right and wrong.
The agnostic does not believe.
Since analyzing each confirmation leads to a broader one.
Until he arrives at the confirmation that there is a God.
And then all the doubts ended?
How did the doubts end?
Because he already had all the answers?
How did the answers end?
See for the agnostic and atheist the doubts ended and the answers ended .
Because the atheist defines that there is no God and that's it!
The agnostic says that there is no way to know the absolute, so he lets it go.
The believer does not!
Whoever thinks he knows something, he still doesn't know how it's good to know.
Thus, agnostics and atheists are bound to define their closed answers without accepting the search for other answers.
Whoever believes has to seek, knowing that there is an objective, and with that there is a right and a wrong. A path and a direction. Thus says the bible, which Christians follow: Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye seek me with all your heart.
So there are two verses, one to seek, and the other to define who thinks he knows does not know as he should, two texts that fundamentally generate the incessant search for the truth and the rational search for the absolute.
Agnostic is a term defined by the biologist Thomas Huxley as irony against the Gnostics. Gnostic is the term for knower, so agnostic is the term for non-knowledge.
Thus, such a hilarious idea defines not wanting to accept knowledge that is contrary to it.
The Atheist, is in the etymology of the definition that God does not exist. In addition to not accepting knowledge on the subject, as an agnostic, the term Atheist defines the impossibility of existence.
An agnostic does not construct the possibility of ceasing to be an agnostic, that is, his system of thought is prejudiced. Prejudice is something preconceived and accepted without the possibility of alteration.
An agnostic does not believe in any part of the existence of divinity, defining that it is impossible to know something.
An individual stops being prejudiced when he accepts logical systems that may annul their decision.
Thus, every individual, to be rational, must have a position in which, using reason, he can change his view of the world. That is, of course, not to be arrogant.
If one individual proves right in what he says, and his grounds cannot overrule the other individual's logic, then one must accept the other's view as correct. Anything else is prejudice.
A religious person who follows biblical definitions has to have an open mind to reason, to understand things as they are. And the same Bible defines this for the individual.
For example, a believer has to have logical tools.
The agnostic has a definite problem in the general system of coexistence, he needs possible tools that can make him change his mind. idea, but he does not create these tools.
Thus, the agnostic has a problem in the social concept: the lack of belief!
Laws only exist if there is belief, and belief is something not stipulated by an agnostic.< br>In fact, every real agnostic is anarchist.
An agnostic defines that nothing generates sense, because if there were sense there would have to be God. If there is no sense, there is no law, if there is no law, there is no rule in fact, but imposition. And if there is imposition, every time I run away, I am correct. And even what is correct is not correct, because if there is no God, there is no right and wrong.
Thus, the agnostic has a clear problem of real experience, as he has no position on what is right and wrong.
If an agnostic defines right and wrong, he is against his own agnostic foundation.
For in order for there to be right and wrong, there must be a universal goal. Without a universal objective there is no right and wrong.
Thus, for an agnostic there is no error in racism, feminism, wars, destruction of nature, and any other action, because absolute truth cannot be defined, and without truth there is no right
Defining an agnostic that defines right and wrong would be the same thing as saying that a Christian does not believe in God, which would be irrational!
Right and wrong are absolute factors.
Whether right and wrong. wrong are not absolute, therefore right is not right, and wrong is not wrong!
Therefore, there is no right and wrong for the agnostic, because there is no absolute.
For as something is right, if you do not do you know it's right? Or is something wrong, if you don't know it's wrong?
How can this exist?
A true religionist is in search of the absolute, and thus needs to change his positions according to learning, but the agnostic determines not to there is a possibility of finding the absolute.
Religious people can define right and wrong by believing in the existence of right and wrong.
A bible verse is - Whoever thinks he knows something, still doesn't know how it should be known.< br>1 Corinthians 8:2.
Without religion there is no belief in right and wrong. For it takes a universal purpose to define right and wrong.
The agnostic does not believe.
Since analyzing each confirmation leads to a broader one.
Until he arrives at the confirmation that there is a God.
And then all the doubts ended?
How did the doubts end?
Because he already had all the answers?
How did the answers end?
See for the agnostic and atheist the doubts ended and the answers ended .
Because the atheist defines that there is no God and that's it!
The agnostic says that there is no way to know the absolute, so he lets it go.
The believer does not!
Whoever thinks he knows something, he still doesn't know how it's good to know.
Thus, agnostics and atheists are bound to define their closed answers without accepting the search for other answers.
Whoever believes has to seek, knowing that there is an objective, and with that there is a right and a wrong. A path and a direction. Thus says the bible, which Christians follow: Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye seek me with all your heart.
So there are two verses, one to seek, and the other to define who thinks he knows does not know as he should, two texts that fundamentally generate the incessant search for the truth and the rational search for the absolute.