Is there a God?

[Sprint]

 

What all-knowing all-powerful being would demand that you worship him, and require it? Why would a being this powerful have such an inferiority complex?

 

 

Well.... Look at history. How many rulers have demanded loyalty from their subjects?

You misunderstand me.

 

I'm saying why does this all-powerful being have insecurities that big. Isnt he supposed to be the greatest thing in the universe?

 

A dictator can be killed by a gun, or in a car accident, I get them demanding loyalty. But why the most powerful form of life in the universe; what does he have to be scared of? If nothing else, that is at least a legitimate question.

 

It wouldn't be a fear of anything. isn't it more of a test to see if they are truly worthy of entering heaven/afterlife.

Yeah, that's the thing, look at the alternative. You either be good and go to heaven, or go to hell, you dont even have to be evil to go to hell, just not worship god. The christian god is a dictator trying to rule you by fear.

 

Yeah they say it's a test. All things are a test. Whenever something bad happens, it's just a test of your faith, and how long you'll stay devoted. To use an old analogy, god is a kid with a magnifying glass and we're ants. He enjoys watching us suffer. If a god exists, he either hates us, or more likely, doesn't care.

 

Like I said, I don't care if people believe in religions, it doesn't hurt me at all. But I do feel that religions hold us back.

[Omar]

@Sprint: If God isn't human, and God is omniscient/omnipotent, then he doesn't necessarily behave like an omniscient/omnipotent human (who would not demand faith from its creatures, for example)... Atheists are the ones who are turning God into a human being here.

We're still having empty debates here. We have never acquired any data on God, and therefore we have no premises for our arguments for and against his existence. Reason alone will tell you God exists and doesn't exist (and that time is both infinite and has a beginning), because all we can do is make valid arguments, both for and against, although none of them will be sound.

Since we have no idea whether God exists, we must reject the question and do without its answer. So the state should allow all religions and absence thereof (so long as they don't limit others' freedom); this policy would make religion capable of holding us back only in the private sphere, which is none of your business.

[Assume Nothing]

It depends how you're defining 'god'. I'll remain a little ignostic until Omar clarifies.

[Omar]

You can't. Or rather, you could give God an arbitrary definition in the same way you can say:

All cups are green.

Socrates is a cup.

Therefore, Socrates is green.

 

And someone could answer:

 

All tables are pink.

Socrates is a table.

Therefore Socrates is pink.

 

[Edited, that was very unclear]

[Zerker_Jane]

No, there's not a God.

[Sprint]

You can't. Or rather, you could give God an arbitrary definition in the same way you can say:

All cups are green.

Socrates is a cup.

Therefore, Socrates is green.

 

And someone could answer:

 

All tables are pink.

Socrates is a table.

Therefore Socrates is pink.

 

[Edited, that was very unclear]

I'm just saying, if god is supposed to be infinitely smarter than me, and i'm smart enough to question that, then shouldn't god be smart enough to question that as well?

[Omar]

I don't understand. I was replying to Assume.

[Assume Nothing]

You can't. Or rather, you could give God an arbitrary definition in the same way you can say:

All cups are green.

Socrates is a cup.

Therefore, Socrates is green.

 

And someone could answer:

 

All tables are pink.

Socrates is a table.

Therefore Socrates is pink.

 

[Edited, that was very unclear]

I'm just saying, if god is supposed to be infinitely smarter than me, and i'm smart enough to question that, then shouldn't god be smart enough to question that as well?

What does that mean?

[Faux]

Carl Sagan is agnostic. Every atheist here must be smarter than him.

 

Do you even know what agnosticism entails? It's not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - they work in conjunction, because its definitions permits so. It's not 'I'm indecisive in believing/disbelieving' - it's a claim regarding knowledge (or the lack thereof in this case) pertaining to the existence/non-existence of a god/gods.

 

This is a lame attempt on your part to change the definition of either word. Someone can't be both agnostic AND an atheist. So yes, they're mutually exclusive of each other. What a dumb argument.

[Faux]

Carl Sagan is agnostic. Every atheist here must be smarter than him.

 

Most people who call themselves atheists hold the position that there is insufficient evidence for god, and although there may be a god, the lack of evidence means there is no reason to believe there is.

 

Agnostics usually hold the same position, the only difference being that they tend to be generally apathetic about religion, and see no point in debating it. They may have a point...

 

But then I do love a good argument. :)

 

Then the people you're talking about are just ignorant of the proper definitions. Doesn't make a difference with my original post.

[Assume Nothing]

Carl Sagan is agnostic. Every atheist here must be smarter than him.

 

Do you even know what agnosticism entails? It's not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - they work in conjunction, because its definitions permits so. It's not 'I'm indecisive in believing/disbelieving' - it's a claim regarding knowledge (or the lack thereof in this case) pertaining to the existence/non-existence of a god/gods.

 

This is a lame attempt on your part to change the definition of either word. Someone can't be both agnostic AND an atheist. So yes, they're mutually exclusive of each other. What a dumb argument.

 

Lame? Dumb?

 

Do you really think that supports your blank assertions?

 

ag·nos·tic

noun /agˈnästik/ 

agnostics, plural

 

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God

 

 

a·the·ist

noun /ˈāTHēˌist/ 

atheists, plural

 

A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods

- he is a committed atheist

 

 

A person who does not believe does not have to know to do so, unless you're misdefining belief.

[Omar]

Where's the part where you explain how one can both not claim disbelief in God and not believe in him?

At any rate, just because Sagan's an agnostic doesn't mean he can't be wrong.

[Assume Nothing]

I don't follow. Agnosticism doesn't claim disbelief, nor claim belief because it's not asserting/denying either - it's answering the question 'do you know if god/gods exists?' I realise that there are inconsistent dictionary definitions, but I'll operate on the ones that are most meaningful + least ambiguous. It also explains the use of terms such as 'agnostic atheist', or 'gnostic theist' too.

[Zerker_Jane]

The term you're looking for is Agnostic-Atheist.

[Faux]

Carl Sagan is agnostic. Every atheist here must be smarter than him.

 

Do you even know what agnosticism entails? It's not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - they work in conjunction, because its definitions permits so. It's not 'I'm indecisive in believing/disbelieving' - it's a claim regarding knowledge (or the lack thereof in this case) pertaining to the existence/non-existence of a god/gods.

 

This is a lame attempt on your part to change the definition of either word. Someone can't be both agnostic AND an atheist. So yes, they're mutually exclusive of each other. What a dumb argument.

 

Lame? Dumb?

 

Do you really think that supports your blank assertions?

 

ag·nos·tic

noun /agˈnästik/ 

agnostics, plural

 

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God

 

 

a·the·ist

noun /ˈāTHēˌist/ 

atheists, plural

 

A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods

- he is a committed atheist

 

 

A person who does not believe does not have to know to do so, unless you're misdefining belief.

 

If you can't figure out the fine line between those two definitions, you're hopeless. I'm reading what you copy/pasted and they're clearly different. Life would be easier for you if you can comprehend these terms better.

[Omar]

I don't follow. Agnosticism doesn't claim disbelief, nor claim belief because it's not asserting/denying either - it's answering the question 'do you know if god/gods exists?' I realise that there are inconsistent dictionary definitions, but I'll operate on the ones that are most meaningful + least ambiguous. It also explains the use of terms such as 'agnostic atheist', or 'gnostic theist' too.

Then don't call people out on their definitions...

[Assume Nothing]

Carl Sagan is agnostic. Every atheist here must be smarter than him.

 

Do you even know what agnosticism entails? It's not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - they work in conjunction, because its definitions permits so. It's not 'I'm indecisive in believing/disbelieving' - it's a claim regarding knowledge (or the lack thereof in this case) pertaining to the existence/non-existence of a god/gods.

 

This is a lame attempt on your part to change the definition of either word. Someone can't be both agnostic AND an atheist. So yes, they're mutually exclusive of each other. What a dumb argument.

 

Lame? Dumb?

 

Do you really think that supports your blank assertions?

 

ag·nos·tic

noun /agˈnästik/ 

agnostics, plural

 

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God

 

 

a·the·ist

noun /ˈāTHēˌist/ 

atheists, plural

 

A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods

- he is a committed atheist

 

 

A person who does not believe does not have to know to do so, unless you're misdefining belief.

 

If you can't figure out the fine line between those two definitions, you're hopeless. I'm reading what you copy/pasted and they're clearly different. Life would be easier for you if you can comprehend these terms better.

 

If you're going to judge, then the onus is on you to prove otherwise. I'd use the definition of agnosticism where it only asserts 'I do not know whether a deity exists or not'. What's your definition, then?

 

Life would be easier if you weren't so unnecessarily hostile.

[champion]

The proof is in the two definitions right there....

[Assume Nothing]

Quote 'em.

[champion]

...you want me to re-quote the post that's right there for you?

[Assume Nothing]

The specific part you want to highlight with specific wording to illustrate your point. It's going to be pointless to refer to previous posts if you're going to be too lazy to even quote it.

 

Here's a clearer illustration of what I define those terms to be:

 

[Faux]

I don't think you understand things you keep posting. Everything you've posted so far differentiates agnosticism and atheism. And I'm only hostile because you're either trolling or insulting everyone's intelligence with your idiotic argument.

[Assume Nothing]

You're still violating rule 1.3 with hostility, regardless of the reason as to why.

 

As for the content of my posts, of course it differentiates agnosticism from atheism - they're two schools of thought, so what's the disagreement? I'm just arguing that they're not mutually exclusive concepts, so it's your responsibility to present a counterargument if you're arguing that they are. Thus far, you've failed to do that - you've presented no argument at all.

[Zierro]

My question about agnostic atheism: Why is there a need for such a redundant label? It is already establishing the relation with a god/lack of god into your life, which sheds some sort of importance onto the subject. It's almost like calling myself anti-Twilight because I don't like Twilight. The message is technically true, but the vibe you get from it just seems a little unnecessary and misleading - like I'm going out of my way for people to distinguish what makes me stand out as opposed to just living my life by not liking Twilight. That is to say, if you consider your belief the default, then there is nothing to "stand out" from and the theists should be the ones worrying about the labels they crafted upon themselves - not the ones who merely choose to walk away from other people's wild idealistic terrains.

 

How can we achieve a more secular society when we are constantly talking about god?

[Assume Nothing]

If you consider it a movement, it's called new atheism. It's the idea that we should no longer tolerate religious intolerance, and their constant unjustified meddling with society. It's the idea that religious beliefs should be scrutinized, criticized, and exposed for 'what they are' wherever it has influence. I consider myself a new atheist.

 

Here's the link for it.