Is God real post your thoughts!

[nickeley102]

of course god keeps it real, you gotta represent

[AlexDT]

of course god keeps it real, you gotta represent

 

Proof, please.

[nickeley102]

he bestowed upon us the the 2-step, with which we

of course god keeps it real, you gotta represent

 

Proof, please.

 

he bestowed upon us the 2-step, the holiest of c-walks

[Obtaurian]

ITT: We debate using either faulty logic, knowledge, or lack thereof.

 

 

 

I didn't have to read this thread to know that everyone here is wrong.

 

 

 

We're all wrong, are we? So there is a god, it's just that he exists in a different way than the one we understand? There isn't a god, but we're wrong about the concept of nonexistence? How can we all be wrong? Either there is a god or there isn't. And until we discover some sort of supernatural realm, the God hypothesis can be tested in this natural world, using scientific principles. And it's been done. And we haven't found anything.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of you agnostics, with your perceived intellectualism, and unfounded arrogance. I think sometimes you enjoy telling everyone else that they're wrong.

 

 

 

Scroll up, sir, and read my pretentious pseudo-intellectual nonsense for yourself. Your logic does not work on me. At first, I was just trollín', but I posted my beliefs. Now I'm lol'ing because I STILL trolled someone.

 

 

 

And finally, if I may ask, what sort of degree do you hold, and in which science?

 

 

 

Also, this:

 

of course god keeps it real, you gotta represent

 

Proof, please.

 

he bestowed upon us the 2-step, the holiest of c-walks

[Range_This11]

There is no way to be a 100% Atheist...

 

 

 

There is no way that any of us can prove that god exists or does not exist. However, that doesn't mean that both of those statements are in equality. It is certainly much more improbable that a god does NOT exist than for a god to exist. We cannot not know for sure that there is no god, but what we can do is say that there certainly is a very high probability that there is no god. Agnostic we all are, many of us at the closest we can be to Atheism.

[Kawtss]

Who knows? Life is a mystery to me. Just the complexity of everything seems wierd.

 

Do I believe in God? At times, haha. If there is a God, he has to hate us or something? Plus, if I was the creator of the world. I dont think id let all these people suffer and die the way they do. Also, I wouldnt want people dedicating their lives to 'thanking' me each and everyday. I think the whole concept of going to church on a sunday is a waste of time.

 

Meh?

[venomai]

There is no way to be a 100% Atheist...

 

 

 

There is no way that any of us can prove that god exists or does not exist. However, that doesn't mean that both of those statements are in equality. It is certainly much more improbable that a god does NOT exist than for a god to exist. We cannot not know for sure that there is no god, but what we can do is say that there certainly is a very high probability that there is no god. Agnostic we all are, many of us at the closest we can be to Atheism.

 

You're misunderstanding the terms agnostic and atheist...

 

 

 

An atheist is simply somebody who lacks belief in gods. Atheism, or more specifically "strong atheism," also refers to those who disbelieve in gods -- i.e. they believe that gods do not exist. Anyone who lacks belief in god's existence is '100%' atheist.

 

 

 

And, of course, we are not all agnostic...

[Lenticular_J]

We're all wrong, are we?

 

Yeah.

 

 

 

So there is a god, it's just that he exists in a different way than the one we understand?

 

Yeah.

 

 

 

There isn't a god, but we're wrong about the concept of nonexistence?

 

Yeah.

 

 

 

How can we all be wrong?

 

Because we're human.

 

 

 

Either there is a god or there isn't.

 

How very narrow-minded of you.

 

 

 

And until we discover some sort of supernatural realm, the God hypothesis can be tested in this natural world, using scientific principles. And it's been done. And we haven't found anything.

 

Sorry, but you won't find God with a microscope.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of you agnostics, with your perceived intellectualism, and unfounded arrogance. I think sometimes you enjoy telling everyone else that they're wrong.

 

Chuckle.

 

 

 

Anyways. Something I truly believe in is that all religions are wrong. Period. Not because they're lying, or because they don't understand, but because they have been reduced to words. You can't do that to God. Which, I believe, connects us all and was first created when the very first creature in the universe became self-seeing. Whether us or not, I don't know.

 

 

 

You could really call my belief in God a number of things, but love would be a good example. And thanks to this self-conscious love, I believe we literally enter God - and, thus, enter everything in the universe - when we die - existing forevermore in the magical, evolving land of this void full of and minus God.

 

 

 

I'm sure you know of the Last Supper, correct? Well, I believe Jesus of Nazareth could constantly see into this universe of love. And at the Last Supper, He realized that we could not see into this region (as a living mortal being) as He could. So, a few scrapes of skin into the bread and a few drops of blood into the wine. His Disciples literally ate of Him. And thus, they could see as he could. They tried writing about the experience, but whether it drove them mad or whether they could not simply put it into words, I do not know.

 

 

 

So, they could see as He could, and as only we humans can at particularly climactic moments of joy in our lives. The Disciples did not carry on Jesus' work, instead hoping that words could help teach people this.

 

 

 

Words cannot.

 

 

 

So, there are my beliefs in a nutshell! :

[BlueLancer]

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of you agnostics, with your perceived intellectualism, and unfounded arrogance. I think sometimes you enjoy telling everyone else that they're wrong.

 

 

 

Agnosticism is the only rational stance towards religion. You can't possibly know if a god/supernatural entity exists or not, which is the exact core premise of agnosticism.

 

 

 

Really, in a classic logical debate, it shouldn't even be given a second thought. By using objective reasoning it's not possible to come to any other conclusion.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean people don't have the right to believe there is a god/gods, or that there isn't one at all, far from it. But theism has nothing concrete to support it, and (while not under the burden of proof, though) atheism is based on denial based on lack of evidence.

 

 

 

Think a thief has broken in a shop in the middle of the night, but the security camera failed to work and there no evidence. Were he ever to get caught, the jury can only make assumptions and beliefs in the absence of proof, and in countries of proper law & habeas corpus, you can never be convicted of something without a fair trial and substantial evidence against you.

 

 

 

By that example atheism would seem more rational, though the concept of 'God' isn't as simple as a common thief. The thief might confess himself some day, but it's impossible to conclude whether a 'God' exists or not, given he/it can't even be physically observed. You can only make a belief either way.

 

 

 

Agnosticism is in contrast to both atheism and theism. Agnosticism simply states the fact no conclusion can be reached based on empirical evidence.

[Obtaurian]

Lenticular, I can really emphasize with your beliefs.

 

 

 

Blue, very well said. =D>

[Faux]

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of you agnostics, with your perceived intellectualism, and unfounded arrogance. I think sometimes you enjoy telling everyone else that they're wrong.

 

 

 

I'm an agnostic. Don't let a few douchebag apples spoil the rest of us.

[Range_This11]

 

Agnosticism is the only rational stance towards religion. You can't possibly know if a god/supernatural entity exists or not, which is the exact core premise of agnosticism.

 

 

 

Really, in a classic logical debate, it shouldn't even be given a second thought. By using objective reasoning it's not possible to come to any other conclusion.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean people don't have the right to believe there is a god/gods, or that there isn't one at all, far from it. But theism has nothing concrete to support it, and (while not under the burden of proof, though) atheism is based on denial based on lack of evidence.

 

 

 

Think a thief has broken in a shop in the middle of the night, but the security camera failed to work and there no evidence. Were he ever to get caught, the jury can only make assumptions and beliefs in the absence of proof, and in countries of proper law & habeas corpus, you can never be convicted of something without a fair trial and substantial evidence against you.

 

 

 

By that example atheism would seem more rational, though the concept of 'God' isn't as simple as a common thief. The thief might confess himself some day, but it's impossible to conclude whether a 'God' exists or not, given he/it can't even be physically observed. You can only make a belief either way.

 

 

 

Agnosticism is in contrast to both atheism and theism. Agnosticism simply states the fact no conclusion can be reached based on empirical evidence.

 

This is what I was getting at in my post.

[lwilson100]

Is God real post your thoughts!

 

 

 

yes Morgan Freeman is real :wall:

[AlexDT]

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of you agnostics, with your perceived intellectualism, and unfounded arrogance. I think sometimes you enjoy telling everyone else that they're wrong.

 

 

 

I'm an agnostic. Don't let a few douchebag apples spoil the rest of us.

 

I was tempted to say something along the lines of "agnostics like you", but somehow that sounded worse. I'm just tired of the ones who berate us for making an absolute statement, then do the exact same thing. I do, however, apologise if it offended anyone it wasn't directed at. I think. Maybe. Yes.

 

 

 

 

Agnosticism is the only rational stance towards religion. You can't possibly know if a god/supernatural entity exists or not, which is the exact core premise of agnosticism.

 

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Logically, the idea of God should never have even surfaced. And on a pseudo-side-note, this is where definitions get a little blurry. By your definition, I'm technically an agnostic, because somewhere, in some form, some sort of God may exist. He's almost certainly not a creator God, since a creator needs to be at least as complex as its creation, which calls into question the origin of his existence. However, I'm convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no god. (A good example of blurred definitions is the term 'pantheism', which is not really a strictly theistic belief at all)

 

Now, while it's possible that a god could exist, there is

 

a) No evidence that he does,

 

B) No reason to think that he does, according to Occam's Razor, and

 

c) No reason to do so anyway, since the odds of his existence are so overwhelmingly low (a rushed rebuke of Pascal's Wager)

 

Ergo, I don't see how agnosticism is a rational stance. Perhaps technical agnosticism, but I'm going to stick with 99.99(andafewmorenines)% atheism.

[Rebdragon]

a) No evidence that he doesn't.

 

B) If definitions are kept loose, no reason to think a higher "creator" being doesn't exist,

 

c) No way to measure the odds.

 

 

 

Strong atheism makes almost as many assumptions as theism. Agnosticism makes no assumptions whatsoever. How the hell does Occam's razor favor atheism over agnosticism?

[Cup Lion]

Anyways. Something I truly believe in is that all religions are wrong. Period. Not because they're lying, or because they don't understand, but because they have been reduced to words. You can't do that to God. Which, I believe, connects us all and was first created when the very first creature in the universe became self-seeing. Whether us or not, I don't know.

 

 

 

You could really call my belief in God a number of things, but love would be a good example. And thanks to this self-conscious love, I believe we literally enter God - and, thus, enter everything in the universe - when we die - existing forevermore in the magical, evolving land of this void full of and minus God.

 

 

 

I'm sure you know of the Last Supper, correct? Well, I believe Jesus of Nazareth could constantly see into this universe of love. And at the Last Supper, He realized that we could not see into this region (as a living mortal being) as He could. So, a few scrapes of skin into the bread and a few drops of blood into the wine. His Disciples literally ate of Him. And thus, they could see as he could. They tried writing about the experience, but whether it drove them mad or whether they could not simply put it into words, I do not know.

 

 

 

So, they could see as He could, and as only we humans can at particularly climactic moments of joy in our lives. The Disciples did not carry on Jesus' work, instead hoping that words could help teach people this.

 

 

 

Words cannot.

 

 

 

So, there are my beliefs in a nutshell! :

 

Wow, that was great to read, because it makes perfect sense to me. Literally, that was beautifully explained. =D>

[Lenticular_J]

Strong atheism makes almost as many assumptions as theism. Agnosticism makes no assumptions whatsoever. How the hell does Occam's razor favor atheism over agnosticism?

 

Yeah, I don't understand that either.

 

 

 

Wow, that was great to read, because it makes perfect sense to me. Literally, that was beautifully explained. =D>

 

Heh, believe it or not, a lot of these ideas were sorta clarified to me by a science fiction book.

 

 

 

Hope I don't start worshiping Dan Simmons.

[Sly_Wizard]

Agnosticism is the only rational stance towards religion.

 

 

 

No, it's not.

[venomai]

Strong atheism makes almost as many assumptions as theism. Agnosticism makes no assumptions whatsoever. How the hell does Occam's razor favor atheism over agnosticism?

 

By definition, a strong atheist is agnostic. It would be illogical to claim knowledge of something which you assert does not exist.

 

 

 

Agnosticism is a position that does not exclude one's belief in gods.

 

 

 

Agnosticism is the only rational stance towards religion. You can't possibly know if a god/supernatural entity exists or not, which is the exact core premise of agnosticism.

 

What exactly is knowledge? Often it is defined as a gained understanding and/or perception of something. With that in mind, say somebody has a spontaneous 'spiritual experience' and suddenly 'understands and perceives god'. Science might be able to pinpoint the change in brain chemistry that triggers such an experience, but showing that the experience was "not genuine" is much more difficult. If the individual chooses to accept that gained knowledge, they can rationally take the position of gnosticism, as they "have knowledge of the divine."

 

 

 

Simplify the above and we have a layman Christian who "just knows" that god exists (even without having a true 'spiritual experience'). Can they too not also rationally take the position of gnosticism?

 

 

 

To you and me agnosticism may seem like the most rational position, but that's because neither of us "have knowledge" of god. If we did have knowledge of god (even if it is a delusion), gnosticism may seem like the much more rational position to take.

[warri0r45]

 

c) No reason to do so anyway, since the odds of his existence are so overwhelmingly low (a rushed rebuke of Pascal's Wager)

 

Ergo, I don't see how agnosticism is a rational stance. Perhaps technical agnosticism, but I'm going to stick with 99.99(andafewmorenines)% atheism.

 

 

 

Why do you say that? I hear Dawkins towing this line but I've never understood the rationale behind it. How can you claim the odds of something which by definition is not amenable to be detected or measured? I can know the odds of a coin toss or the roll of some dice, but that's because I actually know and can observe the outcome of each trial.

 

 

 

Having said that, I don't think not being able to determine the probability of god existing works in his favour.

[venomai]

Lenticular_J - Thanks for sharing your beliefs with us. Glad to hear some original thought is going into them.

 

 

 

Well, I believe Jesus of Nazareth could constantly see into this universe of love.

 

"Seeing into" a "universe of love" struck me as similar to certain descriptions of spiritual experiences.

 

 

 

A true spiritual experience is characterized by varying features, and can be induced by certain drugs and/or deep meditative states (they have also been reported spontaneously). Neurotheology is somewhat of a recent field that investigates the link between neurology and spiritual experiences. Here's a quote from a 2001 article on neurotheology:

 

Although the field is brand new and the answers only tentative, one thing is clear. Spiritual experiences are so consistent across cultures, across time and across faiths, says [psychologist David Wulff], that it "suggest a common core that is likely a reflection of structures and processes in the human brain."

 

 

 

Just speculating here, but it seems plausible that the inspiration of certain spiritual leaders (such as Jesus) may be due to differences in their brain structure that allow them to tap into this spiritual state more readily. The article writes that, in 1999, "Australian researchers found that people who report mystical and spiritual experiences tend to have unusually easy access to subliminal consciousness."

 

 

 

Whether or not you believe these experiences to be a genuine depiction of the divine is another question altogether. :lol:

[AlexDT]

 

c) No reason to do so anyway, since the odds of his existence are so overwhelmingly low (a rushed rebuke of Pascal's Wager)

 

Ergo, I don't see how agnosticism is a rational stance. Perhaps technical agnosticism, but I'm going to stick with 99.99(andafewmorenines)% atheism.

 

 

 

Why do you say that? I hear Dawkins towing this line but I've never understood the rationale behind it. How can you claim the odds of something which by definition is not amenable to be detected or measured? I can know the odds of a coin toss or the roll of some dice, but that's because I actually know and can observe the outcome of each trial.

 

 

 

Having said that, I don't think not being able to determine the probability of god existing works in his favour.

 

What's the likelihood of your computer being transported halfway across the world, because every atom decided to move in a certain direction simultaneously? Is it low? Yes. Is it measurable? Probably not. That's pretty much the only way that a creator god could come into existence - if he spontaneously appeared at around the same time as the Big Bang. Also, there are a lot of religions - picking the right god lowers your odds significantly.

 

 

 

a) No evidence that he doesn't.

 

B) If definitions are kept loose, no reason to think a higher "creator" being doesn't exist,

 

c) No way to measure the odds.

 

 

 

Strong atheism makes almost as many assumptions as theism. Agnosticism makes no assumptions whatsoever. How the hell does Occam's razor favor atheism over agnosticism?

 

a) Burden of proof. Burden of proof. For the love of Zeus, why don't people understand the burden of proof?

 

B) Yes, there is. Occam's Razor. Allow me to elaborate:

 

Let us imagine that there was a creator God that set off the Big Bang. Great! We've answered the question of how the Big Bang happened (which, I'm happy to admit, we don't know the actual answer to). However, now we have a being which, by definition, must be at least as complex as the universe. This goes against Occam's Razor. So, where did he come from? We've actually exacerbated the conundrum.

 

Oh, and also, there's no evidence whatsoever that one exists. Seeing as the creator created something as large as the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and there's no evidence of its existence, that actually seems like a pretty good reason for me to not think he exists right now, if you'll excuse the egregious grammar.

 

 

 

c) Answered above.

 

 

 

One thing I would like to add is that I'm an agnostic. I appreciate that a god may exist. It's just that my atheism lies outside the realm of reasonable doubt. The idea of a god, to me, is unreasonable, yet possible. You could probably call me, and almost every other atheist, a very atheistic agnostic. However, that's a rather convoluted label, so we just stick with 'atheist' to avoid confusion. It only really ever gets confusing when talking with agnostics.

[Obtaurian]

 

c) No reason to do so anyway, since the odds of his existence are so overwhelmingly low (a rushed rebuke of Pascal's Wager)

 

Ergo, I don't see how agnosticism is a rational stance. Perhaps technical agnosticism, but I'm going to stick with 99.99(andafewmorenines)% atheism.

 

 

 

Why do you say that? I hear Dawkins towing this line but I've never understood the rationale behind it. How can you claim the odds of something which by definition is not amenable to be detected or measured? I can know the odds of a coin toss or the roll of some dice, but that's because I actually know and can observe the outcome of each trial.

 

 

 

Having said that, I don't think not being able to determine the probability of god existing works in his favour.

 

What's the likelihood of your computer being transported halfway across the world, because every atom decided to move in a certain direction simultaneously? Is it low? Yes. Is it measurable? Probably not. That's pretty much the only way that a creator god could come into existence - if he spontaneously appeared at around the same time as the Big Bang. Also, there are a lot of religions - picking the right god lowers your odds significantly.

 

 

 

a) No evidence that he doesn't.

 

B) If definitions are kept loose, no reason to think a higher "creator" being doesn't exist,

 

c) No way to measure the odds.

 

 

 

Strong atheism makes almost as many assumptions as theism. Agnosticism makes no assumptions whatsoever. How the hell does Occam's razor favor atheism over agnosticism?

 

a) Burden of proof. Burden of proof. For the love of Zeus, why don't people understand the burden of proof?

 

B) Yes, there is. Occam's Razor. Allow me to elaborate:

 

Let us imagine that there was a creator God that set off the Big Bang. Great! We've answered the question of how the Big Bang happened (which, I'm happy to admit, we don't know the actual answer to). However, now we have a being which, by definition, must be at least as complex as the universe. This goes against Occam's Razor. So, where did he come from? We've actually exacerbated the conundrum.

 

Oh, and also, there's no evidence whatsoever that one exists. Seeing as the creator created something as large as the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and there's no evidence of its existence, that actually seems like a pretty good reason for me to not think he exists right now, if you'll excuse the egregious grammar.

 

 

 

c) Answered above.

 

 

 

One thing I would like to add is that I'm an agnostic. I appreciate that a god may exist. It's just that my atheism lies outside the realm of reasonable doubt. The idea of a god, to me, is unreasonable, yet possible. You could probably call me, and almost every other atheist, a very atheistic agnostic. However, that's a rather convoluted label, so we just stick with 'atheist' to avoid confusion. It only really ever gets confusing when talking with agnostics.

 

 

 

The big flaw that pops up in your arguments again and again is this assumption that a god follows any sort of logic. We know that when the Big Bang began, the laws of physics did not exist. All of your reasoning collapses under the weight of an illogical godhead.

[AlexDT]

 

The big flaw that pops up in your arguments again and again is this assumption that a god follows any sort of logic.

 

 

 

Ah, a deus ex machina. How cute. Assumedly, it is also true that hueless verdant notions slumber angrily.

 

 

 

Until you can prove to me that anything else in existence is able to operate beyond the laws of logic, I can only come to the conclusion that a god cannot either.

 

*Laughs quietly*

[Rebdragon]

Strong atheism: God doesn't exist. Assuming a negative.

 

 

 

I am not justifying theism, nor denying atheism as a whole. I'm merely saying that I don't understand how agnosticism isn't logical from your point of view.

 

 

 

EDIT: If we're both agnostics I don't see why we're arguing, when our point of view is the same :-k .