thews

I'm a guy, and while it's a pretty rock, it's still a rock. It's not just a rock to her though, and it's something she has to wear for life, so she wants a nice ring, so I'm good with it. I ask her about the antique ring, and while I'd be ok with it having been worn before (I acutally think it would be very cool), there was something about that, that I don't believe sat well with her. To each his/her own..., some peopl ebuy motorhomes and I have no idea why, but is she wants a ring, I want her to have the ring she wants. Thanks again.

Thanks, but I don't understand. Should I soot for a .43 or a .57 if my target was a half carat? I just got back from Samual's. I figured in this economy the sales would be so down that they'd be slashing prices, but she said sales were either on target or actually up. Anyway, she showed me a round G I1 1.0 carat for $2784, and a .75 carat F I1 for $1890. The price is really up to my fiance, because it all comes out of the same budget. Bigger ring, less wedding etc. I also found out that synthetic diamonds are hard to find... the local stores don't sell them. From what I've read, they are diamonds, and the only way to tell they're man made is to send them to a lab. Thanks for the advice

Thanks for the replies. I looked into the syntheitc damonds on line, and there aren't any places locally listed that have them. I'll look around, search the net and compare. Thanks again for the input.

Thanks. I'd opt for the Jag but I doubt she'd go for it:D. What is the price difference between a syntheitc and a real one? I realize clarity is a major issue, but is there a relative delta... like half?

I got engaged this weekend and we'll go ring shopping tonight. I figured someone out there has done some research on this and may point me in the right direction. Also, from a ladies I have a pretty big question to ask you. To the ladies: If you were getting married, regardless of whatever financial situation was involved, what size diamond would be the least you'd be truly happy with? WHat matters more, size or clarity? Do you think synthetic diamonds are an insult? Also looked on the web and found diamond prices. Is it cheaper to buy a diamond and have the ring made? Where can I get the best value? Thanks

I already have many times, but againno afterlife = angst spirit forces = afterlife thus the dissonance and conflict in claiming God does not exist, but spirit forces do. This is very simple. I disagree that calling yourself an "atheist" as opposed to an "agnostic" and also believing in spirit forces is not cognitive dissonance. I also fail to see your point in stating the same thing numerous times, when the definition I provided clearly covers this, yet you imply it's not.Please let me know what your stand is on what you believe so I can understand your motive. I'll ask you again for your point. Where do you stand on an atheist claiming to believe in spirit forces? I'm not understanding the basis for your argument. You seem to want to argue definitions of cognitive dissonace rather than the claim that atheists can also believe in an afterlife, and therefore be spiritual. I would appreciate where you stand on this. Thanks

Um... no it doesn't. The dissonance I'm pointing out is the supposed belief that God does not exist, yet clinging to the thought of an afterlife to calm the thought of not existing. I fail to see what point you're making, other than argue what you believe is someone's opinion. You aren't making sense. The dissonance I'm specifically stating deals with the belief that there is no afterlife, no God, and calling yourself an Atheist, yet claiming to also believe in spirit forces. Why you can't see this is something that isn't defined by your deciding that this doesn't encompass cognitive dissonance, because it clearly does. There is a conflict, and I fail to see your point. Do you believe in spirit forces wihtout the possibility that God exists? I'm not the one lacking understanding. What is your point, other than agree with someone else for the show of support?

I look forward to hearing what she says. Can you ask her specifically is she discounts God as a possibility?

Again, other than a show of support I fail to see what relevance this has to the discussion. But OK... Note that I don't use Wikipedia for anything, as i've found their data biased and incorrect on many things. cognitive dissonance - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary And again my point was the dissonance felt when one actually believes there is no God, but there is a spirit. This is correct and again I fail to see what point you're making, other than show support for a fellow poster.

Just because you agree with three other people doesn't make the statement any more valid. Ephalba claimed my use of cognitive dissonance was incorrect, whcih is disagreed with. Other than agreeing with them for the sake of showing support, what exactly is your point WRT to this discussion?

I disagree. A good example (I can't find the link) is someone who buys a car when they can't afford it. Internally, they know they can't afford it, but since the new car gets better gas mileage than the older car and will require less maintenance, they find comfort in that and use it to rationalize buying it, which calms the fact that the overall delta between the new car and the old one is not a wash, but the new car is more expensive. In this example, if someone really does believe they cease to exist when they die, this is not a comfort IMO, but, if they also "believe" that the soul becomes some sort of "spirit force" with no purpose, it makes the thought of death more comfortable, because they exist in some form, which is why the use of cognitive dissonance is relevat to this argument. The logic I'm having a hard time with, is the argument someone can believe in spirit forces but not God. This doesn't make sense (to me) if one believes we are nothing more than a byproduct of chemical happenstance. It can be argued, but it doesn't make sense.

Ok, I'll ask you again. Please explain to me the difference between an agnostic and an athesit without using the word "know" becuase, regardless of what one believes, no one "knows" for sure. Why, while you don't believe in God or spirit forces, are you attempting to place "spirit forces" under the definition of atheist rather than agnostic? I'm curious... because it really doesn't make any logical sense. I find this stement absurd. What your saying is someone is so sure that something exists, a soul for example, but they are also sure that there is no God involved in its creation? What sense does this make? If random chemicals mixed together from an explosion that came from nothing (which also started time), then what you're saying is from that random explosion and random mixing of chemicals, a soul was also created... a spirit. That spirit, goes on to exist after one is dead, but because the random explosion and random mixing of chemicals came from nothing, there is no God... just a soul comprised of chemicals... random chemicals. This make no sense whatsoever. The use of the word "random" is key here. If chemical hapenstance mixing created all life, then it would make sense that when that life form dies nothing would remain. If "something" did remain, then it would be a result of random chemicals. My question then, is that is an atheist believes in evolution, but also "spirit forces," then the spirit forces came from chemical hapenstance. Do you disagree with this logic? Note: From what you've stated, you don't believe in spirit forces. I find it odd how hard you're arguing for a belief in spirit forces as athesitc rather than agnostic... I wish one of you would define what an agnostic is so I can understand why you champion the cause without subscribing to it. Yes it does. You would then be an agnostic, because you haven't decided whether or not "God" exists. This lame attempt to define "spirit forces" without God is simply a tap dance. Being an agnostic means you haven't decided about God. Period. (Note "God" included "spirit forces"). We are all finite. Period. You are grasping at straws that define false hope. Your mind is finite and I can prove it to you, so "proving" something came from nothing is impossible. It's also impossible for me to explain to you who I believe made God, and I agree I can't, and that's because we are both finite in out thought process. Gainig knowledge of the universe and its propertiesis never (I used "never") going to explain, even in theory, how matter just "appeared" on day from nothing. Going back to the one atom = big bang and everything after, that one atom came from somewhere, because the day before ut "appeared" there was nothing. Space is "something" and your mind is finite... you are claiming the impossibe. I get it. Spirit forces = a strong possibility that God has to exist, because one "believes" in an afterlife, and that = "Agnostic." Why you're trying so hard to snuff out the word agnostic to fix your agenda is what I'm trying to figure out. I'm quite sure the scientific community would agree that belief in spirit forces would not fall under the definition of an atheist. I get what you mean, but also don't get this absurd "spirit forces" = athesism argument, because it doesn't make sense. Neither can you on "agnostic": See where it says "(but does not deny that God might exist)"? See that? If you dent God may exist, then you can be an atheist. If you don't deny God might exist, then you are an agnostic. Period. Ok... you'll be waiting a long time for the scientific community to figure this out for you. FYI - The scientific method is contained by the existing universe. Then you missed my point.Claiming antimatter is made up of antimatter particles is 100% bogus... retarded logic. Atimatter = the opposite of something, which includes space. The further define it as "particles" or "things" made up of something tangible is absurd. No I'm not. Cognitive dissonance is the belief in conflicting things, and what the mind does to rationalize it. If you believe there is no God, then when you die that's it... you cease to exist. This may be comfortable to you, but to someone else it may be discomforting. To that person, finding a crack in the belief there is no God, but also placing belief in "spirit forces" is a perfect example of believing in two different things. PS - "Actions" are not mutually exclusive to this definition. The "action" can be an internal belief,and not a physical act. cognitive dissonance: Definition from Answers.com Well, you're wrong IMO, and something coming from nothing is impossible. Regardless of some theory that attempts to explain it, the end result is that the origin of matter and the beginning of time are both infinite concepts that we, as humans with finite minds, cannot perceive.

Because it doesn't make logical sense. If you believe we came from a random mix of chemicals, yet also believe those chemicals produce "something" that exists after death, then the soul is also made up of random chemicals. Further attempting to define "spirit forces" as somehow different than God is just failing to follow any logic, but rather arguing semantic to embrace what some people cling to, in an attempt to find solace and appease the cognitive dissonance in labeling themselves "athesit" but also believing in an afterlife. You aren't making sense to me. Both atheists and agnostics and theists don't "know" for sure, so using "know" to define agnostic doesn't make sense. I again fail to see your point other than force an agenda where an afterlife somehow exists without God and therefore that belief is athestic in nature rather than agnostic. I see you definition of agnostic as incorrect and misleading. Please start making sense. You continue to assert that "atheist" can encompasses an afterlife, which I disagree... that would make you an agnostic, because that's what an agnostic is. You are clearly attempting to re-define the word to open this supposed "revolving door" and combining the two definition of atheist and agnostic to fit an agenda. These are definitions of words, and not up to your interpretation of those words. Saying the same thing a 100 times doesn't validate you point. Afterlife = theist, agnsotic No afterlife = atheist Stop redefining the word "atheist" to fit your definition of what it encompasses. Your relvoving door argument is clearly attempting to make the definition of atheist change to incorporate agnostic. Seriously, regardless of what you believe, you aren't making sense to me. "Know" is not part of the definition of agnostic, no atheist, nor theist.

I understand you're an atheist, but what I don't agree with are the atheists who have claimed one can be an atheist and also believe in spirit forces. This is the crux of my questions, as "agnostic" encompasses "spirit forces," while an atheist believe (IMO) that they will cease to exsit after death. I don't understand. This is clearly defined as "agnostic," as spirit forces without God is a atp dance of semantics. If you disagree, then we agree to disagree. I think where this conversation is going is outside of what you believe, which is why I fail to see your conviction to spirit forces = atheists rather than spirit forces = agnostic. Getting outside of semantics, the way I see this is the definition of what believes happens when we die. If an atheist believes in evolution, it hardly makes sense to me to also believe the result of evolution includes a spirit. Would you agree? OK. You are no more correct than I, nor am I more correct than you. Well, I believe in God and IMO God is infinite, while I am finite. This answer won't appease you if you don't believe in God, but it does appease me. But, rather than answer the question with a question, I just find it hard to not wonder where all this matter came from? OK my bad. This is a stalemate as all matters of opinion not based on facts usually are. I'm getting lost in the length of these topics. I'll go back later. My point is that I associate "spirit forces" with an afterlife, which would fall under the definition of an agnostic. Claiming an atheist (non-theist) also believes in spirit forces just doesn't make logical sense. i would think the scientific community would agree. I disagree with you. If you want to hold onto a theory that may come about that "explains" how nothing became something I'll disagree. This is a false hope IMO, and claiming not to know is fine, but claiming an answer will be found someday is really a reach when the answer is truly infinite in its construct. I fail to see the difference, as we're talking about the definition of the word. Did you really need to add this in a lefthanded way to insult what I do believe? The definition of athesit is one who lacks a belief in God. Call yourself whatever you choose, but you can't change the definition of the word to embrace what you want it to. You still claim that infinite concepts can be discovered "some day" by finite minds. IMO, the "God" you place faith in are the people who comes up with the discoveries, and what they embrace as fact. I will if they don't kick me out. PS - Look up the definition of "antimatter" and see what it claims to be. The accepted theory (from what I've read), is that antimatter is made up of antimatter particles. So, the opposite of what exists is made up of smaller pieces of things that don't exist. In other words, this attempt at bridging the gap of cognitive dissonance between waht is finite and what is infinite cannot be done with a finite thought process ever... the conclusion is foregone that it cannot be reached IMO.

This is a good question, but I think the answer is found in the use of "vain" when looking for intent. I've heard many people say "Gosh darn," or "Goll dern," and while not said in anger, I find it disturbing. I catch myself starting to say "God" in a way you described, but it usually comes out as "gaaahhhh." For the record, it makes me cringe to hear it and I do not use the Lord's name in vain. Using the Lord's name in vain has come to be acceptable on late night TV, where they still bleep out other curse words. This trend is bothersome to me and I wish they would treat all curse words the same and bleep them all out.

Thanks. Which forum would be best if the questions were specific to LDS?

I'm tyring to address the same thing too, and you continue to change the definition of an agnostic, to somehow find a place for post life existence without God, which makes no sense, but fills in the cognitive dissonace with something that is nothing more than rewording of something to make you feel better. The odd thing is, you dont' even believe it, so the conviction for your argument is someone else's opinion, regarding what you define yourself to be. Atheist = No God no past life existence. Agnsotic = Not sure if there is a God or not I agree... we can't "know" either way. Ok, but in your definition you've posted regarding what constitutes an "agnostic," it states the difference is based on the word "know," and again I contend we both don't know, so it hardly makes sense to lump them both in one pile of semantics which embraces the "belief" in spirit without belief in God ...this simply doesn't make sense, not that it's not "correct," but correct in the sense of what does or does not define an agnostic. In my opinion, it's simply a place for someone who calls themselves an atheist, yet to ease the cognitive dissonance they feel, they make a special place where they exist within the word Atheist, but God does not. This is a conflict... is it not?Again... Atheist = No God/No afterlife Agnostic = God not sure. You can't be both, which is the definition of cognitive dissonance, as you are attempting to be two things at the same time. Actually, you almost get it right IMO, but the door is one or the other and not both. You're clearly attempting to make one definition fit the other using semantics with "God" being the operative word, and not what encompasses "God." It's one or the other, but not both by its definition. No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that an Atheist is not a Buddist, and a Buddist is not an Atheist, or, a Buddist could be an agnostic, but an agnostic could also be a Buddist. This is belief in a diety, and claiming "spirit" instead of "God" is where the argument falters, but again even you agree that are no so-called "spirits" in the afterlife. It's just wordplay. I agree 100%... nothing of the afterlife, as the afetrlife is "nothing." "Noting" is ashes to ashes, not some pseudo-diety which you are attempting to define as valid under the guise of what encompasses an "Atheist." No theory huh? Interesting. Nothing just "happened" and exploded, are from that explosion the universe just took off... then chemicals mix together, life sprouts, and here we are. No idea huh? Where did matter come from? I'll let you know what I think... it doesn't exist ...its finite. In a finite dimension, the finite ceases to exist in an infinite dimension. We have finite minds ...a man's got to know his limitations.

Are you saying one can "know" conclusively that God does or does not exist? Well, the way I see it is trying to define the cognitive dissonance one feels if claiming to believe they will cease to exist. If you really think (operative word = "think" vs. "know") that God doesn't exist, then death is the end of you. It would also mean that death is the end of everyone you know (your kids, spouse, parents, etc.)... this is less pleasent that belief that you are going on to a heavenly existence. This dissonance is sort of filled by belief that something exists, just not God. Not sure what, but it's not nothing. Again why all the confusion? I still don't understand your definition of an agnostic, other than paint it into something that supports your opinion. Someone once asked me (an athesit) if I thought God planted the fossils (I don't believe in evolution) just to mess with our heads? It really took me back, because the way I see life, belief in God is not verifiable either way. I can't prove to you God exists, just as you can't prove to me he doesn't. We can't "know," and I sorta figured that was the plan. If we don't "know" either way, we will live life knowing what life is like without God... the knowledge of good and evil. The only way it works is if you can't know, because if God showed up through the clouds tomorrow morning you'd believe in him. Conversly, you can't quite explain where matter came from, because the concept is infinite. In conclusion, I believe the fossils were planted by God to weigh the scales of each argument. In the end, if an atheist doesn't believe in God, but God does exist, I don't believe burning for all eternity is a just punishment. It's just my opinion, but it is what I concluded, which is why I don't believe in hell. It's a learning experience to know what evil is, because evil doesn't exist in the afterlife, which is why it exists here on eart. JMHO.

Now I understand your perspective, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on the spirit thing. We are talking about a dimension we have no concept of, and to conclude "spirits" exist as something other than God, would have also require one believe they have that much resolution on what exists on the other side... if you believe anything exists. Your stance is cut and dry... no God. That's what an atheist is, and not some varriant of what encompasses the soul on the other side. I agree with your logic, and conclude my opinion is no more warranted or "correct" than your opinion though they differ. Again I agree with your logic, as my opinion is different but not more correct, but stop short of finding some middle ground where "spirits" exist but God doesn't ...it doesn't make sense from its definition, and from what I can tell, it doesn't make sense to you, though you feel it falls under the heading of what an "atheist" is vs. an "agnostic" viewpoint... Who is the one defining "God" in the answer? In this logic, you are wrong. The existence of God is unknowable... that's a fact unless you can prove it to me, or me you. I understand you believe God does not exist, but you also acknowledge you don't know, which would make you an agnostic. If you don't believe God exists, then IMO you are an athiest. If you have come to the conclusion that something exists after you die, then you have a soul, and if you have a soul, then the possibility of God existing would be much higher than someone who didn't believe in God at all. Hence the difference between the two words, and belief in "spirits" would fall under the "agnsotic" header, while belief that God does not exist and we cease to exist when we did to be an atheist's perspective. This isn't semantics, as I see it as the conviction required to come to the conclusion that one either does or does not exist after death, and not the resolution of what that existence entails. Ok. I get what you believe, but it's not a "religion" then. I still fail to get your point now that I understand what you beleive. Just to be clear (IMO):When we die, we cease to exist = Atheist Not sure if we exist or in what form when we die = Agnostic. To reach this conclusion you must have thought about it a lot. I ask for your opinion. Where did matter come from?

Please explain to me what you define as an agnostic?

I wish to be honest with you, and must admit my intent. I was born a Mormon and baptized in the Mormon church. I have since left Mormonism, and am contemplating getting my name removed from its records. I do have a few questions though and I just want to make sure I'm making the right decision. If I have questions to your answers posted, I should start a new thread about it, or ask them in this thread? Thanks, thews

OK. Would you associate that belief with being an atheist, or is it just possible? OK. So you believe there are spirit forces, but there is no God? So, without any understand of the origin of time and matter, you actually believe there are spirit forces, yet you also actually believe that a higher being in the afterlife is not possible? If I were to concede the big bang came from one atom, blew up and "created" the universe, the chemicals mixed together and created us, and from us we hatch a soul that exists in the afterlife... if I gave you all that, what would your answer be to the origin of that one atom. Where did that one atom come from? You should actually bounce a few thoughts back and forth before declaring victory. You've reworded the argument into something I did not say or mean. Something created the so-called spirit forces. Where did they come from. Note - unless you are infinite you cannot answer this question. Your definition of "God" is just being twisted here. If a "spirit force" is the highest being, it is, for all intent and purposes, "God" ...IMO. If something cannot come from nothing, then the spirit force came from something else, and critical thought process would probably define that as a higher order, but also acknowledge that the human mind is fact finite in its thought process and therefore the logical conclusion is that the degree one can be certain that the possibility of God iz zero in minimal. If you are certain God does not exist, to the point where you define your "belief" as atheist, surly you should have an theory to the origin of matter and time... please enlighten me. Then where did matter come from? I am not sure (fact) my God does exist, but I believe what I do based on the decisions I've concluded based on the information I not only have, but can possibly have with a finite thought process. It's the conviction to that belief that defines what I call myself. I don't believe in hell by the way... but that's another thread topic.

It's just my experience, but most atheists I've been exposed to are highly educated liberals. They tend to associate religion with politics, and in being pegged left-wing, use "Atheist" as sort of a statement against God who they associate with right wing politics. The other atheists I've been exposed to use it out of anger towards God in a way (I'm not working this well, because I don't want to speak for anyone, but again this is just my take). My logic: Atheist - God does not exist Agnostic - I'm not sure whether or not God exists Your argument: God does not exist, but spirits do. Are you that sure God does not exist to claim to be atheist rather than agnistic? You have to be 100% convinced that spirits rule the afterlife... it doesn't make sense to me... why not just believe that, but remain unconvinced that God could possibly exist, and then you'd be an agnostic? If you’re a vegetarian that eats chicken, are you really a vegetarian? Take it one step further and claim to be vegetarian because you only eat fish. One could theoretically claim to be vegetarian but only eat white meat, which includes birds but not pigs. Where do you draw the line? If you’re so sure that God does not exist to the point where you remove even its possibility by claiming to be atheist rather than agnostic, how can you also truly believe spirits exist? I don’t believe this view is truly “atheistic” in nature, but rather agnostic. I disagree when we're talking about the question asked in this thread and how it relates to the definition on what comprises as atheist vs. an agnostic. How would you define an agnostic? This is semantics, but I see your point. My point is they are probably agnostic rather than atheist though they believe in some spirit force. The spirit force would have to remove any possibility that God exists to side with atheism rather than agnosticism. I still think you're playing a name game. "Atheist" doesn't encompasses the possibility God exists, while the religions you mention could also be "Agnostic" when best describing what they believe.

I've asked this question before and received mostly angry replies, and I'm seriously just seeking an answer. If the Book of Mormon is truly a historical record, why are there no artifacts where the great battles are said to have taken place?

I thought the "official" version of the KJV of the bible Mormons use is the one revised by Joseph Smith (JST). Is this correct?