Is God real post your thoughts!

[venomai]

However, misquoting me is not a good idea.

 

How have I misquoted? Given the full context, you said:

 

"To be honest, I'd rather work on a percentage system. 100% agnosticism is the belief that the chances of God existing and not existing are exactly the same, and so on."

 

 

 

The rest of your post doesn't seem to suggest that your above definition is being used "merely as a tool."

 

 

 

On one end of the spectrum is the atheist, who is convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no God, probably due to evidence, and lack thereof.

 

This is more accurately described as strong atheism, and it need not necessarily be a conviction "beyond any reasonable doubt."

 

 

 

Part of the problem is that there are two common definitions of atheism. The broad definition is "a lack of belief in gods," and the narrow definition is "the belief that gods do not exist." The former is ambiguous, hence the need for strong/weak prefixes.

 

 

 

In the middle is the agnostic, who is of the opinion that, employing our current understanding of the world, we still cannot begin to scratch at the question of whether or not God exists. Then, of course, there's the theist, who has faith for some reason.

 

You again show your misunderstanding when you place agnosticism "in the middle," as if to say that it cannot co-exist with theism. Agnosticism lies in the realm of knowledge, and atheism lies in the realm of belief. They are two separate questions.

 

 

 

I am, for the sake of argument, an atheist. The most important thing you need to keep in mind, however, is that I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no God, based on afformentioned evidence and nonevidence.

 

Then you are also agnostic, by most definitions (unless you claim to "have knowledge of god," in which case you would be gnostic).

 

 

 

You can certainly say that the existence of unicorns is currently unknowable, but to call yourself an agnostic in the matter of unicorns is a little silly.

 

It's not silly at all. If we conclude that the existence of unicorns is not known, then 'agnostic' (a claim to ignorance) would be the most rational position to take.

 

 

 

We may not know for certain, but we can certainly draw a strong conclusion one way, or another.

 

And that is exactly what many agnostics are doing (hence 'agnostic theists' and the like).

 

 

 

...It was also at this point that I noticed we're now arguing over semantics and not actually achieving anything.

 

I disagree. It's extremely important that we're all clear on definitions before we get into a debate with these terms.

[Rebdragon]

Now, I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone is a true agnostic. You simply cannot (or at least, I would hope) ignore the facts that evolution suggests that a creator god is not necessary, or that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies (I couldn't think of any actual evidence to back up theism, sorry guys).

 

Why can't God have a hand in evolution?

 

 

 

I will concede, due to the definitions (which are making me increasingly frustrated), that nobody knows for certain whether or not there is a god. However, that's where "beyond any reasonable doubt" comes back in. You can certainly say that the existence of unicorns is currently unknowable, but to call yourself an agnostic in the matter of unicorns is a little silly.

 

Why? The universe, if not the multiverse, is a pretty big place. I don't see why unicorns couldn't exist somewhere.

 

 

 

It was only at this point that I remembered the terms "strong atheism" and "weak atheism", which are perhaps the more accepted terms for what I'm trying to describe.

 

...It was also at this point that I noticed we're now arguing over semantics and not actually achieving anything. This is no fun, let's get back to logic.

 

As ven pointed out, this is kind of necessary.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

I will concede, due to the definitions (which are making me increasingly frustrated), that nobody knows for certain whether or not there is a god. However, that's where "beyond any reasonable doubt" comes back in. You can certainly say that the existence of unicorns is currently unknowable, but to call yourself an agnostic in the matter of unicorns is a little silly.

 

Why? The universe, if not the multiverse, is a pretty big place. I don't see why unicorns couldn't exist somewhere.

 

 

 

 

Which is exactly why I'm not an atheist: based on pure logic.

 

 

 

Think of it, you live on a single, puny planet. You haven't explored, or have knowledge of, about even a small minuscule % of the possible things the universe can contain. Unless proven otherwise or explored first; Anything can exist in the universe, even something deviating from our natural laws.

 

 

 

What I mildly dislike is people who are *strongly* convinced they "know" a God exists somewhere without any concrete evidence. A belief is not synonymous with knowledge.

[J a m e s]

Explain people who survive from diseases with less then 10% survival rates?

 

 

 

god is real

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a Christian, and believe in miracles, but even I got to say that's an awful argument. Said people only have 10% or less? So they still can get better, it's just very unlikely.

 

Imagine all the other believers who prayed to their gods too and died anyway.

 

 

 

No, no, no!!!!! God had a special plan for them!!! <---- typical creationist argument

 

 

 

If God has a plan for every [bleep]ing one of us, then why should we pray at all?

[mistywerty]

I'm Athiest. Here are some vague answers to questions directed at a Christian that people like to bringup, I can only reply to one of them.

 

 

 

1. How do you know YOUR god is the real god, and YOUR religion is the true pathway to heaven

 

 

 

Can you give directions to Central Park? I doubt that any two people woud give the same answer, but they'd all be right (with the aid of a map) There are many pathways to god. Christianity is just one of them.

 

 

 

2.Prove god exists

 

 

 

Prove that your mother loves you.

 

 

 

3. It's cruel to teach children what to beleive

 

 

 

If I thouroughly believe that my child will be eternally tortured if she does not believe in my god, is it cruel to teach what to believe? I believe I'm saving her. That's the best I can do as a parent.

 

 

 

Proper Response:

 

 

 

If you were to believe that pouring boiling oil on your child gave them eternal life, what that be cruel? Seems like a crude example, but the result'd be the same, no matter what you do - She'd be scarred for life, and she'd never mastubate again.

[Saru Inc]

1)Good point, I have to get back to you on that. I used to know the answer, but forgot. I read this apologetics book back in the 8th grade, and forgot it all. However, I did post a link proving Christianity, but I guess no one clicked on it...

 

 

 

2) What? First off, that's probably the easiest pont I've ever heard a Atheist make AGAINST religion. It is so easy to prove your mother loves you, though it does differ mother to mother.

 

 

 

 

 

3) Uhh, that really doesn't make any sense. Second, here's the thing, Christian parentsw teach the kids, but it's the kids responsilbility to ask God into their hearts. Also, why bring up masturbation in a religious topic..? Lol. I mean, yes, there are aprents who force feed Christianity into their childrens heads, and the kids rebel, and become Atheists. Some become Christians again in their life later on, others stay Atheistic. Ever heard 'faith like a child' ? This is a problem with most Children (Christian or not) what it means is you believe whatever you mom\dad\pastor\teacher tells you, and never question it. You can question God, ask him to prove he's real, and he'll show you.

[J a m e s]

You can question God, ask him to prove he's real, and he'll show you.

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

You do realize that if what you just said was true, everyone would be Christian, right?

[Saru Inc]

No, they wouldn't. Just like, in the Bible, Jesus did miracles, and people still didn't believe in him. If you don't want to be a Christian, God won't make you be one.

[J a m e s]

No, they wouldn't. Just like, in the Bible, Jesus did miracles, and people still didn't believe in him. If you don't want to be a Christian, God won't make you be one.

 

 

 

I do want to be a Christian. If there was something other than the stories of the Bible and the word of people with terrible reasoning like you I'd believe in the Christian God immediately.

[Saru Inc]

How do I have terrible reasonings, pleazse show examples, and say why they're terrible.

 

 

 

 

 

Second: Then talk to a theologian, or a pastor. And the Bible aren't just 'stories,' while some, the parables, are, they are used by many Atheists actually. They contain good moral standards. And many people and cities and such have been proven to be correct.

[Cup Lion]

James, there have been miracles, or unexplained happenings. I'll probably get flamed for bring up Eucharistic miracles again, but you could look them up. They are quite interesting.

[AlexDT]

[hide=Part one]

Now, I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone is a true agnostic. You simply cannot (or at least, I would hope) ignore the facts that evolution suggests that a creator god is not necessary, or that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies (I couldn't think of any actual evidence to back up theism, sorry guys).

 

Why can't God have a hand in evolution?

 

Why should he? The theory of evolution does not require a god to exist, so why should we think that he does? And if he does have some sort of involvement in evolution, why are we still so imperfect? Why didn't he accelerate it a little, or only allow beneficial mutations? If God did help with evolution, how did an omniscient and omnipotent being manage to fail so triumphantly?

 

 

 

I will concede, due to the definitions (which are making me increasingly frustrated), that nobody knows for certain whether or not there is a god. However, that's where "beyond any reasonable doubt" comes back in. You can certainly say that the existence of unicorns is currently unknowable, but to call yourself an agnostic in the matter of unicorns is a little silly.

 

Why? The universe, if not the multiverse, is a pretty big place. I don't see why unicorns couldn't exist somewhere.

 

Sure, they could. The problem is, of course, that unicorns are not quite as incredible as God. Unicorns didn't create the entire universe. They aren't omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I find it utterly ludicrous that you proclaim yourself an agnostic in the matter of unicorn existence, because you're saying that the idea is reasonably credible. Perhaps you don't understand the phrase "beyond any reasonable doubt"?

 

 

 

 

 

It was only at this point that I remembered the terms "strong atheism" and "weak atheism", which are perhaps the more accepted terms for what I'm trying to describe.

 

...It was also at this point that I noticed we're now arguing over semantics and not actually achieving anything. This is no fun, let's get back to logic.

 

As ven pointed out, this is kind of necessary.

 

The arguing over semantics part, or the logic part? If you intend to win the argument by being the greater semanticist, I won't bother arguing with you anymore.[/hide]

 

~ I don't mean to double-post, but putting everything in one post somehow causes the format tags to do strange stuff. I don't remember setting the font size to 50...

 

~ Oh right, posting time limit. Nevermind...

[AlexDT]

[hide=Part two]

However, misquoting me is not a good idea.

 

How have I misquoted? Given the full context, you said:

 

"To be honest, I'd rather work on a percentage system. 100% agnosticism is the belief that the chances of God existing and not existing are exactly the same, and so on."

 

 

 

The rest of your post doesn't seem to suggest that your above definition is being used "merely as a tool."

 

Ok, this is getting a little repetitive now.

 

100% atheism = God does not exist

 

100% theism = God exists

 

Lets just say, for the sake of the imaginary spectrum, that agnosticism is in the middle. Place yourself on the likelihood-that-god-exists-imho spectrum

 

 

 

On one end of the spectrum is the atheist' date=' who is convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no God, probably due to evidence, and lack thereof.[/quote']

 

This is more accurately described as strong atheism, and it need not necessarily be a conviction "beyond any reasonable doubt."

 

 

 

Part of the problem is that there are two common definitions of atheism. The broad definition is "a lack of belief in gods," and the narrow definition is "the belief that gods do not exist." The former is ambiguous, hence the need for strong/weak prefixes.

 

And the latter is incorrect, theres no belief involved. Its the conviction, beyond any reasonable doubt, that god(s) dont exist.

 

Some people say the moonlanding was faked because their older brother told them so. Some say the same because they watched some sort of documentary, and accepted it. They both share the same belief. I was just offering my observation on the most common reason for a persons atheism.

 

 

 

In the middle is the agnostic' date=' who is of the opinion that, employing our current understanding of the world, we still cannot begin to scratch at the question of whether or not God exists. Then, of course, there's the theist, who has faith for some reason.[/quote']

 

You again show your misunderstanding when you place agnosticism "in the middle," as if to say that it cannot co-exist with theism. Agnosticism lies in the realm of knowledge, and atheism lies in the realm of belief. They are two separate questions.

 

Atheism does not lie in the realm of belief. It is a lack of a belief. Atheism is a belief system in the same way that bald is a hair colour. Be warned, or Ill use even more clichés next time. If youre saying that agnostics are the ones who do not claim to know whether or not a God exists, then both atheists and agnostics are agnostic (I guess the latter is redundant). Theists are the only ones who say they know either way.[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=Part two cont.]

I am' date=' for the sake of argument, an atheist. The most important thing you need to keep in mind, however, is that I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no God, based on afformentioned evidence and nonevidence.[/quote']

 

Then you are also agnostic, by most definitions (unless you claim to "have knowledge of god," in which case you would be gnostic).

 

I know Im an agnostic. Ive said that before. But to say that causes confusion, since the definitions are varied anyway, and atheism is the more adequate term. I lack belief in god(s), thats all.

 

 

 

You can certainly say that the existence of unicorns is currently unknowable' date=' but to call yourself an agnostic in the matter of unicorns is a little silly.[/quote']

 

It's not silly at all. If we conclude that the existence of unicorns is not known, then 'agnostic' (a claim to ignorance) would be the most rational position to take.

 

Ok, you know what? Fine. Im an agnostic in the matter of EVERYTHING, because everything in existence may or may not exist, and this may or may not all be a complete illusion. Even the illusion may not exist. Therefore, Im agnostic towards everything. However, I know beyond any reasonable doubt that I exist.

 

Let me just repeat that for the umpteenth time. Any reasonable doubt. This is where all the confusion has been arising, because Im also applying that phrase to agnosticism. The agnostics with which Ive spoken think that the nonexistence of God can be reasonably doubted. I think this is the widely accepted definition, whether its accurate or not.

 

 

 

We may not know for certain' date=' but we can certainly draw a strong conclusion one way, or another.[/quote']

 

And that is exactly what many agnostics are doing (hence 'agnostic theists' and the like).

 

Well thats just redundant, because beyond any reasonable doubt (getting sick of it yet? Its stuck in my head now :() already technically encompasses that.

 

 

 

...It was also at this point that I noticed we're now arguing over semantics and not actually achieving anything.

 

I disagree. It's extremely important that we're all clear on definitions before we get into a debate with these terms.

 

Ok' date=' Ill attempt to lay out my definitions.

 

- Agnosticism: The opinion that, with our current understanding of the universe, a conclusion cannot be drawn either way. However, the lack of evidence does not put Gods nonexistence beyond any reasonable doubt (argh).

 

- Atheism: The lack of belief in god(s), usually due to lack of evidence. Technically convoluted, but perhaps from now on we should argue based on individual beliefs. This is getting too tiring.[/hide']

[D Jay99]

1. How do you know YOUR god is the real god, and YOUR religion is the true pathway to heaven

 

 

 

Can you give directions to Central Park? I doubt that any two people woud give the same answer, but they'd all be right (with the aid of a map) There are many pathways to god. Christianity is just one of them.

 

Comparing heaven to Central Park? :thumbup:

 

 

 

No, they wouldn't. Just like, in the Bible, Jesus did miracles, and people still didn't believe in him. If you don't want to be a Christian, God won't make you be one.

 

I personally haven't seen any miracles happen. You might say 'That's because you don't truly want to be a Christian'.

 

So, in order to convince me to turn to Christianity, I'd like to see a miracle. But it seems like I can only see them if I already believe God can make miracles happen. And I don't. Because I haven't seen any miracles, so I don't believe in God. :?

[doomy]

Explain people who survive from diseases with less then 10% survival rates?

 

 

 

god is real

 

Explain the 90% who don't?

[mistywerty]

So, in order to convince me to turn to Christianity, I'd like to see a miracle. But it seems like I can only see them if I already believe God can make miracles happen. And I don't. Because I haven't seen any miracles, so I don't believe in God. :?

 

 

 

If that's your mentality, go to a magic show. You'll easyly get converted :P Science is wonderful, and if you do see something that appears to be a miracle, you must take a scientific aproach towards it (e.g Not thinking that just becuase a Stone Statue waved at you, it's the work of god.) 99% of the time, there will be an explaination that you don't know yet (e.g all the electrons moved in the same direction at the same time again to create the effect of a 'waving statue'.)

 

 

 

Also, there is no proof that your mother loves you. She might secretly hate you, you don't know...

[Zierro]

Explain people who survive from diseases with less then 10% survival rates?

 

 

 

god is real

 

Explain the 90% who don't?

 

 

 

Yeah seriously. All that it proves is that math is real, not God.

[Lenticular_J]

I'm Athiest. Here are some vague answers to questions directed at a Christian that people like to bringup, I can only reply to one of them.

 

 

 

1. How do you know YOUR god is the real god, and YOUR religion is the true pathway to heaven

 

 

 

Can you give directions to Central Park? I doubt that any two people woud give the same answer, but they'd all be right (with the aid of a map) There are many pathways to god. Christianity is just one of them.

 

 

 

2.Prove god exists

 

 

 

Prove that your mother loves you.

 

 

 

3. It's cruel to teach children what to beleive

 

 

 

If I thouroughly believe that my child will be eternally tortured if she does not believe in my god, is it cruel to teach what to believe? I believe I'm saving her. That's the best I can do as a parent.

 

 

 

Proper Response:

 

 

 

If you were to believe that pouring boiling oil on your child gave them eternal life, what that be cruel? Seems like a crude example, but the result'd be the same, no matter what you do - She'd be scarred for life, and she'd never mastubate again.

 

I like you.

[warren211]

I'm Athiest. Here are some vague answers to questions directed at a Christian that people like to bringup, I can only reply to one of them.

 

 

 

1. How do you know YOUR god is the real god, and YOUR religion is the true pathway to heaven

 

 

 

Can you give directions to Central Park? I doubt that any two people woud give the same answer, but they'd all be right (with the aid of a map) There are many pathways to god. Christianity is just one of them.

 

 

 

2.Prove god exists

 

 

 

Prove that your mother loves you.

 

 

 

3. It's cruel to teach children what to beleive

 

 

 

If I thouroughly believe that my child will be eternally tortured if she does not believe in my god, is it cruel to teach what to believe? I believe I'm saving her. That's the best I can do as a parent.

 

 

 

Proper Response:

 

 

 

If you were to believe that pouring boiling oil on your child gave them eternal life, what that be cruel? Seems like a crude example, but the result'd be the same, no matter what you do - She'd be scarred for life, and she'd never mastubate again.

 

 

 

Probably the most epic post on this thread.

[venomai]

And the latter is incorrect, theres no belief involved. Its the conviction, beyond any reasonable doubt, that god(s) dont exist.

 

Let me state again. The two most well-accepted English definitions of atheism are as follows:

 

 

 

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God

 

2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

 

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism

 

 

 

You are free to redefine atheism to mean "a monkey's buttocks" if you wish, but such nonsensical redefinition of the English language gets us nowhere when we are attempting to have a debate on these terms. Strong atheism (i.e. the narrow definition) certainly does require a belief, although not necessarily one that is beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

 

 

Atheism does not lie in the realm of belief. It is a lack of a belief.

 

Atheism, used broadly, refers to both strong and weak atheism. It is not necesarily restricted to a mere lack of belief.

 

 

 

Atheism and theism answer questions of belief: Do you believe in god?

 

Agnosticism and gnosticism answer questions of knowledge: Do you have knowledge of god?

 

 

 

This is what I mean by the "realms" of belief/knowledge.

 

 

 

If youre saying that agnostics are the ones who do not claim to know whether or not a God exists, then both atheists and agnostics are agnostic (I guess the latter is redundant).

 

Most atheists are agnostic. It would be rather contradictory to claim knowledge of something and not believe in it (e.g. "It's raining outside but I don't believe that it is").

 

 

 

Agnostics are agnostics... well, yea. Atheists are atheists, AlexDT is AlexDT, etc.

 

 

 

Theists are the only ones who say they know either way.

 

This describes gnosticism, not theism. A theist may or may not "know."

 

 

 

I lack belief in god(s), thats all.

 

According to your earlier statements, you don't just lack belief in gods; you believe that they do not exist (= strong atheist).

 

 

 

Therefore, Im agnostic towards everything. However, I know beyond any reasonable doubt that I exist.

 

Surely you can see the blatant contradiction in such a statement?

 

 

 

Any reasonable doubt. This is where all the confusion has been arising, because Im also applying that phrase to agnosticism.

 

The confusion seems to arise from your lack of understanding of the terms atheist and agnostic, and your attempts to redefine these terms to your liking. I see no confusion in the "any reasonable doubt" phrase.

 

 

 

The agnostics with which Ive spoken think that the nonexistence of God can be reasonably doubted. I think this is the widely accepted definition, whether its accurate or not.

 

To use an analogy: although layman understanding of the term "scientific theory" may not be accurate, it would be ludicrous to suggest that all debates surrounding the subject must degrade into the same inaccurate representations solely because of widespread colloquial use.

[mistywerty]

Nice work disecting his post there :P

[Lenticular_J]

I do want to be a Christian. If there was something other than the stories of the Bible and the word of people with terrible reasoning like you I'd believe in the Christian God immediately.

 

That isn't wanting a religion for religious reasons.

[RichieMcD]

I do want to be a Christian. If there was something other than the stories of the Bible and the word of people with terrible reasoning like you I'd believe in the Christian God immediately.

 

 

 

If you want a friendly group of people usually intelligent and none of the completely unrealistic stories of the bible join a group of secular humanists or something along those lines.

[Obtaurian]

How do I have terrible reasonings, pleazse show examples, and say why they're terrible.

 

 

 

 

 

Second: Then talk to a theologian, or a pastor. And the Bible aren't just 'stories,' while some, the parables, are, they are used by many Atheists actually. They contain good moral standards. And many people and cities and such have been proven to be correct.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone here has the energy to go through each and every post of yours to explain why you're wrong. Your logical fallacies are kind of... blatantly obvious. My recommendation to you would be to take a critical thinking class.

[Sly_Wizard]

Agnosticism is the only rational stance towards religion.

 

 

 

No, it's not.

 

 

 

Since you chose to just reply with 3 words, I take it you misunderstood the broader message...

 

 

 

You're free to believe in the absence of Gods or in the existence of them, I meant it from an encyclopedic, neutral view... Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines a 'God':

 

 

 

one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

 

 

 

Since you can't produce plausible, testable evidence neither towards the existence of a God nor towards the absence of one, the result is "unknown", just as in a crime without witnesses or inconclusive evidence, a verdict cannot be reached based on assumptions or personal experiences/perceptions.

 

 

 

Rational and personal beliefs can be separate. There are people who are christians/muslims by personal preference, yet completely understand it's a possibility a God might not exist. There are many non-religious people who understand it might be possible a God exists.

 

• 
   
  [*:1z62zvd2]Personal belief: That man is rude and has a history of violence, I can just feel he killed the prime minister.
   
  [*:1z62zvd2]Rational belief: Since the security camera wasn't on and there were no eyewitnesses, there is no way to know if he was guilty or not.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  [*:1z62zvd2]Personal belief: I simply know a God exists/doesn't exist. Anybody else is an idiot and is wrong.
   
  [*:1z62zvd2]Rational belief: I don't have conclusive evidence either way, he either exists or he doesn't.

 

 

 

I understood what you meant when you wrote it out the first time, and the answer is still "No, it's not".