Is there a God?

[Cheat]

I read an interesting ish article the other day about the limits of human intelligence. I noticed early on people saying how there must be some form of higher being 'logically' to explain the things we do not understand. This article was arguing against this line of thought saying humans may be by far the most intelligent creatures on earth but our intelligence must be limited as there are concepts totally alien to an animal there must be concepts we as humans cannot understand. Of course the counter argument is that we are able to explain something like the origin of the universe we have just not discovered it yet - again quite possible.

Another interesting point I came across on my travels of the many magazines littered about my grandparents house was an article on the human ability to create higher purpose and a god. It was a bit over complicated for me but seemed to be saying that the intense power of belief could lead to people doing things that were considered miraculous or even believing that something miraculous had happened. It was part of a large series of articles entitled something like; Power of Persuasion: Convincing people they're Dead. I will try and find some links.

 

Personally my view is agnostic - I probably if I'm honest don't believe in a God but sometimes I find myself wishing to some kind of higher entity or generally acting as if someone is controlling the outcome therefore I don't believe I can call myself an aetheist.

 

A final interesting point is the modern reference to 'The Universe' as a kind of deity in TV shows. Presumably because TV execs feel that reference to God will alienate its viewers they now refer to 'The Universes' Plan for you etc.. See 'How I met your Mother' for numerous examples.

[champion]

It's the idea that we should no longer tolerate religious intolerance

Wait a minute....

[Assume Nothing]

By no means does a limit on human intelligence show that there's an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, creator deity who loves and expects reciprocity of said love from humans - it would be fallacious to argue this. Nor does the 'miraculous power of belief' prove the existence of a deity either, as it's too ambiguous to distinguish chance from a miracle. If we were to take the god-hypothesis as a scientifically verifiable claim, then it would require proof such as the healing of amputees, or statistical improvements of those who pray to deities.

 

I don't think you can call yourself a theist unless you actually believe in the existence of a deity of any kind, and if the 'Universe' is what you're calling a god, then why not just call it the Universe?

 

EDIT - I should clarify, champion. We should no longer tolerate religious intolerance from the religious, as their intolerance entails destructiveness towards our societal health. It would be equivocating to say the same about being intolerant of the religious.

[Faux]

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.

 

I'm allowed to criticize the content of your post. I never made any personal attack. Quit crying.

 

And here's the proof that you posted for me showing they are mutually exclusive concepts;

 

ag·nos·tic

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

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

 

And here's Sagan (admitted agnostic) regarding atheists:

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".

 

Mutually exclusive. Agnostics are as far from atheists as they are from theists. You're desperate attempt to group the two together is pathetic. It's like being given three choices: yes, no, i don't know. You're equally arguing no and i don't know to be not mutually exclusive. It's [bleep]ing hilarious.

[Sinkhan]

And here's Sagan (admitted agnostic) regarding atheists:

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".

 

Mutually exclusive. Agnostics are as far from atheists as they are from theists. You're desperate attempt to group the two together is pathetic. It's like being given three choices: yes, no, i don't know. You're equally arguing no and i don't know to be not mutually exclusive. It's [bleep]ing hilarious.

 

I feel like I'm jumping into this riff raff a little late, but agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

 

There seems to have been a gross misunderstanding and improper definition of the term agnosticism by many sides in this discussion. Being agnostic purely means that you just don't believe that there can be any evidence to prove something; to be agnostic towards religion simply means you believe that the actual state of knowing a whether or not a god or god exists is not possible. It does not actually speak to which side of the coin you are on, believer or non-believer. The dictionary definition raised is a little misleading. Over the years, agnosticism has been generalized simply as the "idk about religion" group and that definition in and of itself has been taken as a popular interpretation.

 

That said, Sagan's quote (often used by theists to argue against atheists in general) actually refers to gnostic atheism, which is another flavour of atheism. Gnosticism is the opposite to agnosticism as one could probably reason, meaning that one believes that a certain idea is in fact provable. Sagan specifically mentions "someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God". Gnostic means yes, I can prove something, and atheism means I believe in no god.

 

Looking at this more generally, we actually have four flavours of belief:

 

Agnostic Atheism: Does not believe in a deity, does not believe evidence to prove either way exists

Gnostic Atheism: Does not believe in a deity, believes evidence to prove this to be the case exists

Agnostic Theism: Believes in a deity, does not believe evidence to prove either way exists

Gnostic Theism: Believes in a deity, believes evidence to prove this to be the case exists

 

Given my history with religious debates, I will simply state that I am firmly agnostic atheist and then only provide objective explanation of concepts, like above.

[Assume Nothing]

>I'm allowed to criticize the content of your post.

>Quit crying.

Is it just me, or do you really not see what you're doing?

 

 

And here's the proof that you posted for me showing they are mutually exclusive concepts;

 

ag·nos·tic

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

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

... that's proof of what, exactly? Try explaining, it helps.

 

 

And here's Sagan (admitted agnostic) regarding atheists:

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".

 

Mutually exclusive. Agnostics are as far from atheists as they are from theists. You're desperate attempt to group the two together is pathetic. It's like being given three choices: yes, no, i don't know. You're equally arguing no and i don't know to be not mutually exclusive. It's [bleep]ing hilarious.

He's not a dictionary, nice appeal though - it's a quote that refers to gnostic atheism, please refine your understanding of these terms before trying to argue with me. It'll save us both time and effort that could be more productively spent. For your information, calling an argument pathetic doesn't make it pathetic - showing it is, does.

 

I'd like to ask, what have you shown except for your lack of understanding for the terms we use in religious debate? If we accept your definition, we must abandon its association with everything we refer to as 'agnostic atheism', and therefore making it a moot argument since a majority of atheists aren't gnostic at all. It's why we must accept the definition I've used consistently throughout this thread, but it's apparently in your interest to argue against that for some odd reason.

 

If you can't pull out a dictionary and show me you're right, then we can disregard your argument (see hitchen's razor).

 

 

[hide=Here's another gnosticism definition since you seem so keen on proving me wrong]gnosticism

Religious and philosophical movement from about the 1st century BCE through the 3rd century CE. Its name derives from the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge" because it claimed secret knowledge that ensured salvation. The documents found at Nag Hammadi are of great importance for the study of gnosticism.[/hide]

EDIT - rewrote the entire post.

[Omar]

Okay, guys, what matters is what is meant and not was is said. You're meant to fight over actual arguments, not definitions.

I'm reading about Wittgenstein's lectures on religious beliefs atm. Not done yet though.

In addition to the incommensurability of religious belief Wittgenstein seems to suppose that it is unshakable and that it regulates one's entire life. Speaking again of the Last Judgement he says:

 

"Whenever he does anything, this is before his mind. In a way, how are we to know whether to say he believes this will happen or not?

 

Asking him is not enough. He will probably say he has proof. But he has what you might call an unshakeable belief. It will show, not by reasoning or by appeal to ordinary grounds for belief, but rather by regulating for in all his life."

Which would tend to put religious belief and irreligious belief in the same category... Belief/faith is reflected in our actions. Acting as though God exists/doesn't exist is believing/not believing in him. In this sense we all have faith.

 

He also holds religious beliefs are not based on evidence. He maintains, "we don't talk about hypothesis, or about high probability. Nor about knowing" with respect to religious belief. Christianity "doesn't rest on an historical basis" and beliefs concerning it "are not treated as historical, empirical propositions".[10] Wittgenstein wants true religious belief to be distinguished from superstition. Commenting on Father O'Hara's attempt to offer scientific arguments he remarks, "if this is religious belief, then it is superstition", and he then says of O'Hara, "here is a man who is cheating himself".

Belief doesn't rely on evidence; superstition does. I see a woman collecting herbs in the middle of the night, and I think: "she's a witch"; that's superstition. I see bush that burns and yet isn't consumed, and I think: "that's God's work"; that's superstition as well.

[Assume Nothing]

It's been argued ad-nauseum on these threads already, and it's quite established that a lot of OTers have no interest in believing in God unless they were raised a Christian.

 

I am curious to ask though - do religious people really believe in a literal heaven, or do they just really hope there is? If it's infinitely better than this world, I don't see why they shouldn't send themselves towards salvation pretty soon.

 

One of the things I hate about religion is the additional baggage it contains, like the idea that you shouldn't like atheists, or how you should vote for certain political parties, or even... determining which hand to wipe one's buttocks. It's the additional baggage that makes religious belief dangerous, because by accepting the god-hypothesis as true, you're also susceptible to poor decision-making too.

[Sinkhan]

I am curious to ask though - do religious people really believe in a literal heaven, or do they just really hope there is? If it's infinitely better than this world, I don't see why they shouldn't send themselves towards salvation pretty soon.

 

Are you implying suicide? In many faiths (especially most sects of Christianity), this does not agree with the ideals that will get you there in the first place (though I'm not an expert on the topic)

[Assume Nothing]

I'm not entirely sure how the logistics of it would work, but I'm thinking something to the effect of not preventing death (we choose to not-die every day, subconsciously).

[champion]

What's an example of a way that would be "not preventing death" that wouldn't essentially be purposeful suicide? I can't think of any.

[Sinkhan]

Well I guess we are seeing it with suicide bombers (again, I don't actually know if that's accurate. I've read in some places that these people are radicals and not true followers of a faith, but then we get into the Scotsman fallacy)

 

That's a very curious proposition otherwise. How does one not-prevent death while not actively pursuing suicide? Do long term effects count? Would eating unhealthy foods often and smoking be "not-preventing death"?

[Assume Nothing]

I hate the 'suicide bombers are radicals' cop-out. They are/were religiously motivated to commit deeds of evil, and they act as though their deity existed - they're a believer, regardless of whether they're radicals. A good way to sum it up would be the Steven Weinburg's attributed quote:

 

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

 

... as for the question posed, I'd say that's an interesting point to explore, actually. I'd say a good example of non-prevention of death could be as vague as 'generally taking more risks', like not wearing a seat belt when driving (it's not a thought-out example, feel free to pick out the flaws in that).

[Omar]

One of the things I hate about religion is the additional baggage it contains, like the idea that you shouldn't like atheists, or how you should vote for certain political parties, or even... determining which hand to wipe one's buttocks. It's the additional baggage that makes religious belief dangerous, because by accepting the god-hypothesis as true, you're also susceptible to poor decision-making too.

There are plenty of religious people who don't have this "additional baggage". I think what you don't like is stupidity, not religion.

[Sinkhan]

One of the things I hate about religion is the additional baggage it contains, like the idea that you shouldn't like atheists, or how you should vote for certain political parties, or even... determining which hand to wipe one's buttocks. It's the additional baggage that makes religious belief dangerous, because by accepting the god-hypothesis as true, you're also susceptible to poor decision-making too.

There are plenty of religious people who don't have this "additional baggage". I think what you don't like is stupidity, not religion.

 

Or perhaps the "blind faith" and the whole rigidity in which some people choose to embrace it. The primary flaw I see with that concern is that people will do that with a lot of things, not just religion.

[Omar]

...including irreligion. Just look at the burqa bans in France.

[Assume Nothing]

Burqa bans are examples of what? The refusal to tolerate religious imposition of sharia's law? Religion flatly denies people rights, it doesn't give them more.

[Jonanananas]

Burqa bans are examples of what? The refusal to tolerate religious imposition of sharia's law? Religion flatly denies people rights, it doesn't give them more.

 

Burqa bans don't allow women to wear burqas, even if they want to. Yeah, I get the concept behind it, trying to work against female oppression in islam, but that doesn't really work out anyway, and you can't close your eyes to the fact that some muslim women WANT to wear the burqas, therefore you are imposing a ban on a part of their religion.

[Sinkhan]

...including irreligion. Just look at the burqa bans in France.

 

I'm not sure that actually has to do with irreligiousness. Technically, it's against covering your face in public, not only burqas and niqabs. Some people have also cited that it's a potential security risk.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Jack Straw is an Anglican, and he also made negative comments about women who came to his MP's office wearing a full-face veil (the niqab). I doubt you can pin that on irreligiousness. French culture has always emphasised the importance of putting the French part of a person's individual identity before all else, including religion, and in France, the vast majority of people consider it rude to talk to someone who isn't showing you their face, as many people do in Anglophone countries as well. Therefore, the consensus was that full-face veils used for non-vital reasons weren't appropriate.

 

The fact those veils had religious significance was coincidence, but if you look at it from the inverse perspective, can you really justify reversing that judgement because it's a piece of religious clothing. Why is it something that would otherwise be banned anyway, not be banned because it's "religious"? How do you define religion from any other set of values under the same circumstances?

[Jonanananas]

Why would it be banned? While culture may deem it inappropriate, that's no reason to deny it to people. As long as there's no negative consequence for others or severe consequences for the person itself (And I wouldn't count being insulted because someone acts against your culture as a negative consequence), there's no reason to ban anything.

[Assume Nothing]

It violates other people's rights to good health, and arguably right to security. It doesn't matter if it's religious or not, a full faced veil is still considered threatening regardless of its origins. I can't see why 'but they want to' would be a good reason, if you applied the same principle towards say, a mask. It's purpose may be different, but its effects are the same.

 

As for the comments about irreligion: irreligion is a term that's indifferent to religion, anti-religion is actively opposed to religion. It can't be pinned towards irreligion if it provides no motivation for anti-religious sentiments anyway.

[Jonanananas]

It violates other people's rights to good health, and arguably right to security. It doesn't matter if it's religious or not, a full faced veil is still considered threatening regardless of its origins. I can't see why 'but they want to' would be a good reason, if you applied the same principle towards say, a mask. It's purpose may be different, but its effects are the same.

 

As for the comments about irreligion: irreligion is a term that's indifferent to religion, anti-religion is actively opposed to religion. It can't be pinned towards irreligion if it provides no motivation for anti-religious sentiments anyway.

 

Uh yeah? People are allowed to wear masks too, you know? (Baring certain occasions, e.g. demonstrations where it might be important to be able to identify people)

 

edit: And let's please not get into a discussion where wearing masks is allowed and where not.

[Assume Nothing]

>taking it out of context.

 

I mean fully veiled masks. It's worn when necessary, and not worn when not - could you provide an example of when burqas are necessary for anything other than religious justification *(i.e. unsound justification)?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Furthermore, can you provide an example where a hijab is incapable of fulfilling whatever religious significance only a full-veiled niqab or burqa can accomplish?

 

It is true that the Qu'ran talks of purdah, and that some women interpret and choose to follow this as meaning they should cover their faces completely, not just partially, but it is also true that mainstream, moderate Islam, as any other religion, places a large emphasis on its followers adapting to the society they live in so as to promote cohesion between themselves and other social groups. The vast, vast majority of Muslim girls I grew up with (and compared to most Britons, coming from Preston, I grew up with a lot of them) had no real complaint about wearing a hijab since 'masks' of any description were banned on school premises, be they religious, political or otherwise. Of course, that could be because Muslims in my generation are likely to be more accustomed to British traditions than previous generations.

 

In Western democracies, we're quite clear on the fact that what happens behind closed doors is, largely, of no business to the state, and if female Muslims (or females from any religious denomination for that matter) want to cover their faces in private areas, no one has any right to stop them. When you're in a public area, however, we have a set of unwritten rules that we encourage everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof, to generally comply with. Showing your face to people you're interacting with is one of those rules, because doing otherwise means we can't communicate with each other as well as we could and it's therefore seen as showing a lack of respect to the other person.