NationStates Jolt Archive

It invariably comes up every time one of these religious polls is posted. Atheists and agnostics are lumped together, much to the chagrin of both groups, both of which spend far too much time talking about the differences between the two philosophies.

So here's the poll, and there's an answer for those of you who insist on answering even if the poll doesn't apply.

Feel free to discuss your belief system below.

I'm a non-believer. Does it make me an Atheist or an Agnostic?
You can call me either one, or you can call me a pagan, heathen, whatever. I don't really care, and I don't understand why people get so hung up in arguing about the differences.

i'm an agnostic humanist with buddhist leanings.

A non-believer is probably an agnostic. Ahteists seem to be more anti-believers. In that sense agnostics are the only realy non-believers as atheists believe very firmly in the absence of God.

I'm a non-believer. Does it make me an Atheist or an Agnostic?
You can call me either one, or you can call me a pagan, heathen, whatever. I don't really care, and I don't understand why people get so hung up in arguing about the differences.The difference, RG, is really one of attitude I think. Most people who proclaim their atheism do so with a fervor not unlike that of a fundamentalist preacher. They are certain and beyond doubt that there is no God.

Agnostics are more mellow about it, since uncertainty lies at the heart of their belief system. We don't know if there is a God or not, and we fall along all points of that spectrum from fairly-sure-there-is-but unwilling-to-commit to fairly-sure-there-isn't-but-not-taking-any-chances to don't know and can't know and okay with it.

The difference really is that theists and atheists are BOTH believers. The former BELIEVE that a divine being exists, and the latter BELIEVE that a divine being does NOT exist.

Redneck Geek hit the agnostic POV on the head... they DON'T believe... one way or the other. Atheists are more hard headed specifically BECAUSE, by definition, they DO have a belief. Agnosticism is tha absence of such a belief, on either side of the fence.

If you have to ask if you are an agnostic or an atheist, in all likelihood, you fall in the agnostic catagory, specifically because if you had a held belief that god does NOT exist, you'd KNOW that you fell in the atheist catagory.

I hope the clarification helps :)

Technically, agnosticism is (I believe, heh) the term for those who feel that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God(s). Most people assume some leeway from this definition though.

Personally, I feel it's impossible to disprove only. But the onus should be on the proof positive.

In R.E. lessons at school, all those years back, I seem to remember we were taught that agnostics weren't sure, but currently had no knowledge of god, whereas atheists firmly believed there isn't a god.

Good Senator from Ecopoeia:

A very good epistimelogical addition :)

Cheers.

Technically, agnosticism is (I believe, heh) the term for those who feel that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God(s). Most people assume some leeway from this definition though.

Personally, I feel it's impossible to disprove only. But the onus should be on the proof positive.

YAYAYAYAYAY!!!!! somebody who knows what "agnostic" means!!!

not to be over-enthusiastic, but you are a rare and special breed if you understand that.

and whoa, i find it hard to believe that only 2 peopl around here are diests of some kind...perhaps they aren't voting because they think the poll is ONLY for agnostics and atheists (as the title suggests)?

and whoa, i find it hard to believe that only 2 peopl around here are diests of some kind...perhaps they aren't voting because they think the poll is ONLY for agnostics and atheists (as the title suggests)?Maybe--I considered leaving them off entirely, but didn't want to have anyone feel left out. Give them a chance to see what it feels like to be lumped in together, christians and wiccans and muslims and buddhists, all under the umbrella of "believers." :lol:

and whoa, i find it hard to believe that only 2 peopl around here are diests of some kind...perhaps they aren't voting because they think the poll is ONLY for agnostics and atheists (as the title suggests)?Maybe--I considered leaving them off entirely, but didn't want to have anyone feel left out. Give them a chance to see what it feels like to be lumped in together, christians and wiccans and muslims and buddhists, all under the umbrella of "believers." :lol:

lol, i really shouldn't be so gleeful about that suggestion, but i am...TAKE THAT, BELIEVERS!!!

ahh, bitterness...i guess it's gotta be monday.

A non-believer is probably an agnostic. Ahteists seem to be more anti-believers. In that sense agnostics are the only realy non-believers as atheists believe very firmly in the absence of God.

Not quite. There are two commonly accepted degrees of atheism, weak and strong. You're describing the strong kind. A weak atheist simply lacks belief in God. Agnostics believe that there may or may not be a god, and that we don't know for sure.

a + theism = without god
a + gnostic = without knowing

I'm an atheist and a Secular Humanist, by the way.

I guess after reading all this, I still consider myself to be an atheist.
I'm just not vocal/militant about it. I really don't think people that are believers are silly or stupid. On the other hand - I think the in your face atheists, like the guy in California who is suing to have "God" removed from the Pledge, are self absorbed a-holes that give all atheists a bad name.

Atheist
14% [ 4 ]
Agnostic
62% [ 17 ]
God/Goddess/other believer
22% [ 6 ]

Total Votes : 27

Lots of agnostics. That's good. I like people who aren't afraid of the unknown.

I'm a non-believer. Does it make me an Atheist or an Agnostic?
You can call me either one, or you can call me a pagan, heathen, whatever. I don't really care, and I don't understand why people get so hung up in arguing about the differences.

Wow, a Republican Atheist, a rare find indeed!

A non-believer is probably an agnostic. Ahteists seem to be more anti-believers. In that sense agnostics are the only realy non-believers as atheists believe very firmly in the absence of God. Atheists believe in the absence of god until his exsitence is proven. Agnostics believe that one cannot prove one or the other. I myself am an atheist, and if jesus ever appears to separate the good earth-dwellers from the evil, I'll worship at his sandals.

I guess after reading all this, I still consider myself to be an atheist.
I'm just not vocal/militant about it. I really don't think people that are believers are silly or stupid. On the other hand - I think the in your face atheists, like the guy in California who is suing to have "God" removed from the Pledge, are self absorbed a-holes that give all atheists a bad name.Did you see that the case was resolved today without an actual decision on whether or not the inclusion of "under God" was constitutional or not? They ruled 8-0 that Newdow had no standing to bring the suit in the first place, thereby neatly sidestepping the issue completely.

i do not have a belief in a lack of a god
i dont belive in god
since there is in fact NO GOD there is no belief about it
its like santa clause, i dont BELIEVE that santa doesnt exist
he just doesnt

only agnostics have a maybe/maybe not point of view.

i do not have a belief in a lack of a god
i dont belive in god
since there is in fact NO GOD there is no belief about it
its like santa clause, i dont BELIEVE that santa doesnt exist
he just doesnt

only agnostics have a maybe/maybe not point of view.

I guess after reading all this, I still consider myself to be an atheist.
I'm just not vocal/militant about it. I really don't think people that are believers are silly or stupid. On the other hand - I think the in your face atheists, like the guy in California who is suing to have "God" removed from the Pledge, are self absorbed a-holes that give all atheists a bad name.Did you see that the case was resolved today without an actual decision on whether or not the inclusion of "under God" was constitutional or not? They ruled 8-0 that Newdow had no standing to bring the suit in the first place, thereby neatly sidestepping the issue completely.

I can't really blame them. If they had ruled either way they would have had large numbers of people pissed at them.

I personally think saying "under God" should be optional. People should be able to say the pledge however they like, IMO. If they want to say "under no God", that's fine too.

im an Athiest, but i don't know what agnostic means, which is annoying

i do not have a belief in a lack of a god
i dont belive in god
since there is in fact NO GOD there is no belief about it
its like santa clause, i dont BELIEVE that santa doesnt exist
he just doesnt

only agnostics have a maybe/maybe not point of view.

You have a belief about Santa Claus' (non)existence. You just expressed it. You have a belief about God's (non) existence. You just expressed it.

You are an atheist. Get over it.

Edit: DP

Edit: TP

Edit: QP

I guess after reading all this, I still consider myself to be an atheist.
I'm just not vocal/militant about it. I really don't think people that are believers are silly or stupid. On the other hand - I think the in your face atheists, like the guy in California who is suing to have "God" removed from the Pledge, are self absorbed a-holes that give all atheists a bad name.Did you see that the case was resolved today without an actual decision on whether or not the inclusion of "under God" was constitutional or not? They ruled 8-0 that Newdow had no standing to bring the suit in the first place, thereby neatly sidestepping the issue completely.

I can't really blame them. If they had ruled either way they would have had large numbers of people pissed at them.

I personally think saying "under God" should be optional. People should be able to say the pledge however they like, IMO. If they want to say "under no God", that's fine too.I'm going to brag on myself a minute here--I predicted this outcome back in March. (http://incertus.blogspot.com/2004/03/supreme-court-and-pledge-michael.html) And I agree--they saw an out that wouldn't be controversial and took it. For all the moaning about "activist judges" and courts, they really try to stay out of controversial situations when they can.

QtP.

I'm a non-believer. Does it make me an Atheist or an Agnostic?
You can call me either one, or you can call me a pagan, heathen, whatever. I don't really care, and I don't understand why people get so hung up in arguing about the differences.

Wow, a Republican Atheist, a rare find indeed!

Proper application of logic led me to both!

(I'm not really a Republican, though. I'm more of a semi - conservative Capitalist. Republicans are just much closer to my
ideals.)

I guess after reading all this, I still consider myself to be an atheist.
I'm just not vocal/militant about it. I really don't think people that are believers are silly or stupid. On the other hand - I think the in your face atheists, like the guy in California who is suing to have "God" removed from the Pledge, are self absorbed a-holes that give all atheists a bad name.

Michael Newdow just wants to change the pledge back to the form it had before being subjected to McCarthyist anti-red paranoia (you know, back when communism and atheism were thought to be synonymous). Sure, his methods aren't the best, but if they're going to make schoolchildren recite a government-sanctioned nationalistic mantra every morning, they might as well make it universal to all citizens. Right now it excludes non-theists. Ironically, it's followed by "liberty and justice for all..."

Ashmoria - The late Douglas Adams, whom I deeply love and respect, said this in an interview (paraphrased): "It is not that I do not believe in a god. I am convinced that there is not a god. There is a difference."

Redneck Geeks - Depending on your standpoint on social issues, you may be libertarian.

i do not have a belief in a lack of a god
i dont belive in god
since there is in fact NO GOD there is no belief about it
its like santa clause, i dont BELIEVE that santa doesnt exist
he just doesnt

only agnostics have a maybe/maybe not point of view.

You have a belief about Santa Claus' (non)existence. You just expressed it. You have a belief about God's (non) existence. You just expressed it.

You are an atheist. Get over it.
i AM an athiest, i do not believe in god, gods or even the supernatural.

its not a belief. its just the way it is

i do not have a belief in a lack of a god
i dont belive in god
since there is in fact NO GOD there is no belief about it
its like santa clause, i dont BELIEVE that santa doesnt exist
he just doesnt

only agnostics have a maybe/maybe not point of view.

You have a belief about Santa Claus' (non)existence. You just expressed it. You have a belief about God's (non) existence. You just expressed it.

You are an atheist. Get over it.
i AM an athiest, i do not believe in god, gods or even the supernatural.

its not a belief. its just the way it is

sorry honey, but you can't disprove God's existence. you don't have conclusive proof that God doesn't exist, you simply have no evidence that he does. that's not the same thing.

and, for the record, i am agnostic, so don't go yelling at me like i'm an Xtian or something.

ag·nos·tic ( P )
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.


I personally believe in a God, I do not want to confine myself to any type of religon as of now in my life.

i AM an athiest, i do not believe in god, gods or even the supernatural.

So you have a lack of belief in those things. That's fine.

There are two main options for stating a lack of belief.

"There is no ____."

"I don't know if there is ____."

These two options can have other statements and qualifications that come along with them, but unbelief in regards to anything ultimately comes down to one of these two statements, at least in my experience. Of course, I could be missing some evidence for a third option... :wink:

its not a belief. its just the way it is

The two are not mutually exclusive.

A: I believe that there is no God.
B: That is a fact. (Paraphrase of "its just the way it is")

Your belief that there is no God probably stems from your perception that the non-existance of God is fact. You have no proof that God does not exist, but you stubbornly hold to your belief. Ultimately, you have a faith-based system that is at its base no more substantiated than theism.

i do not have a belief in a lack of a god
i dont belive in god
since there is in fact NO GOD there is no belief about it
its like santa clause, i dont BELIEVE that santa doesnt exist
he just doesnt

only agnostics have a maybe/maybe not point of view.

You have a belief about Santa Claus' (non)existence. You just expressed it. You have a belief about God's (non) existence. You just expressed it.

You are an atheist. Get over it.
i AM an athiest, i do not believe in god, gods or even the supernatural.

its not a belief. its just the way it is

sorry honey, but you can't disprove God's existence. you don't have conclusive proof that God doesn't exist, you simply have no evidence that he does. that's not the same thing.

and, for the record, i am agnostic, so don't go yelling at me like i'm an Xtian or something.
Furthermore, "believers" could say the same thing about god, since to them, he simply exists in the same way that he simply doesn't for you...
I am agnostic, and I am also stupidly happy about this thread. I was actually going to make one myself...but you beat me! :D

i am an atheist

I don't belive thiers a god

I'm certain thiers not one (i.e. extremely low probablity thier isn't one, much while its possible that gravity might not apply when i drop this rocks, its certain to do so)

(no evidence for, provide some and i'd have to change my mind, but untill then......)

sigh its diffiuclt doing this sort of arguing, a beliver can just say i belive and leave the argument at that, a non belivers argument is sadly far more complex

i am an atheist

I don't belive thiers a god

I'm certain thiers not one (i.e. extremely low probablity thier isn't one, much while its possible that gravity might not apply when i drop this rocks, its certain to do so)

(no evidence for, provide some and i'd have to change my mind, but untill then......)

sigh its diffiuclt doing this sort of arguing, a beliver can just say i belive and leave the argument at that, a non belivers argument is sadly far more complex
and it shouldn't be so
Shouldn't it be more difficult to explain your beliefs than your non-beliefs?

thought of more to say below

i AM an athiest, i do not believe in god, gods or even the supernatural.

So you have a lack of belief in those things. That's fine.

There are two main options for stating a lack of belief.

"There is no ____."

"I don't know if there is ____."

These two options can have other statements and qualifications that come along with them, but unbelief in regards to anything ultimately comes down to one of these two statements, at least in my experience. Of course, I could be missing some evidence for a third option... :wink:

its not a belief. its just the way it is

The two are not mutually exclusive.

A: I believe that there is no God.
B: That is a fact. (Paraphrase of "its just the way it is")

Your belief that there is no God probably stems from your perception that the non-existance of God is fact. You have no proof that God does not exist, but you stubbornly hold to your belief. Ultimately, you have a faith-based system that is at its base no more substantiated than theism.

i really think that only holds if there is some chance that the thing i dont believe in DOES exist.

so my lack of belief in santa is not just a belief. there is no santa. i honestly have never been to the north pole. i cant personally disprove the existance of santa.

my lack of belief in the queen of england on the other hand would qualify as some kind of wacko nonsense.

god = santa

oh and i dont get upset. please dont think i would yell at anyone for their ideas no matter how harsh my posts might sometime read. you just seemed to want my real opinion which can be rather harsh.

The fact is that you can't fit atheism into the same mold as religion. It's not so much comparing apples to oranges as it is comparing a lemon to a lime. Someone posted earlier that the onus falls on the proof positive to provide evidence (and rightly so) . Thusly, I do not subscribe to a religion by not believing you, as the burden of proof falls on religion to prove that there is a God, and convince me of that, not on me to prove that there isn't. Read up on your scientific method.

The fact is that you can't fit atheism into the same mold as religion. It's not so much comparing apples to oranges as it is comparing a lemon to a lime. Someone posted earlier that the onus falls on the proof positive to provide evidence (and rightly so) . Thusly, I do not subscribe to a religion by not believing you, as the burden of proof falls on religion to prove that there is a God, and convince me of that, not on me to prove that there isn't. Read up on your scientific method.I disagree--the moment you make an assertion (i.e. there is no such thing as God), the burden of proof falls upon you. Now if you're willing to say that there is no positive evidence of the existence of God, that's fine, but the following statement that there is no God is as much a statement of faith as the one that says there is a God.

Atheists are in the impossible situation of having to prove a negative in order to prove they are correct. Logically, the best they can hope for is a theoretical statement about the existence of God, i.e. that according to them there is no extant evidence available at this time to prove the existence of God. Your belief that there is no God is at worst, hypothesis, at best, theory. it is not and cannot be proven.

Agnostic simply means one who does not know, and the word has uses that extend beyond religious beliefs. Agnostics can object to all epistemological claims depending on how strongly they believe in the relativism of truth. Atheist, in contrast is one who does not believe in God. This is what the words mean, you can use them how you will, but this is their meaning. It has nothing to do with extremism or how vocal one is, it's purely a philosophical issue. The reason atheists and agnostics are often grouped together is because neither of them constitue any kind of unified body. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have anything in common with any other atheist, nor does being agnostic. It's a definition in the negative, it merely describes what you don't believe, and people can not believe things for as many reasons as there are people not believing them!

I half to disagree with the classifications you offer Incertonia. I dont follow any religion but i dont actively disbelieve in g_d so i cant be an atheist. I would vote for agnostic but i think people who claim to be agnostic are just wimps who arent willing to stand up for what they believe. I make an active choice not to believe but not because i disbelieve.

I think that puts me in the category of 'other'.

I half to disagree with the classifications you offer Incertonia. I dont follow any religion but i dont actively disbelieve in g_d so i cant be an atheist. I would vote for agnostic but i think people who claim to be agnostic are just wimps who arent willing to stand up for what they believe. I make an active choice not to believe but not because i disbelieve.

I think that puts me in the category of 'other'.

Agnostic doesn't mean you aren't willing to stand up for what you believe... I've had to stand up for my Agnosticism many times. My family (christian, with fundies on one side) hates that I don't think the Bible is law. It's not that I don't believe in God but I am not about to put faith in it. There simply is no evidence for there being a God, so I have no decision on the matter.

It's like having a coin flip in the air and believing for SURE that it will be heads... it could be either heads or tails, there is no evidence that it will be either.

I do not belief in anything above me because I do not know whether or not there is a god and it cannot be proven whether or not there is a god. If you call that atheism, then I am an atheist. If you call that agnosticism, then I am an agnostic. I really dont care what label you give "non-believing in anything higher".

No offence to the agnostics who have posted here but:

1. Surely it is possible to tell whether or not there is a god/God, just by observing the way the world seems to work. I.E the scientific method. It's unscientific to be agnostic.

2. People say that atheists are anti-believers, but I've found agnostics to be much more anti-believer. It's almost like "Woo hoo, I'm better than you because I don't have religious ferver"

3. Agnostics seem to believe that all viewpoints taken up by religious people are direct commandments from the religion, when sometimes they are not. So basically, agnostics seem to think that religious people don't do anything unless they are told to by their religious beliefs.

4. In my own personal point of view, I believe that we CAN tell whether there is a god or not (see number 1).

The fact is that you can't fit atheism into the same mold as religion. It's not so much comparing apples to oranges as it is comparing a lemon to a lime. Someone posted earlier that the onus falls on the proof positive to provide evidence (and rightly so) . Thusly, I do not subscribe to a religion by not believing you, as the burden of proof falls on religion to prove that there is a God, and convince me of that, not on me to prove that there isn't. Read up on your scientific method.I disagree--the moment you make an assertion (i.e. there is no such thing as God), the burden of proof falls upon you. Now if you're willing to say that there is no positive evidence of the existence of God, that's fine, but the following statement that there is no God is as much a statement of faith as the one that says there is a God.

Atheists are in the impossible situation of having to prove a negative in order to prove they are correct. Logically, the best they can hope for is a theoretical statement about the existence of God, i.e. that according to them there is no extant evidence available at this time to prove the existence of God. Your belief that there is no God is at worst, hypothesis, at best, theory. it is not and cannot be proven.
Here's how thats frustrating(with all respect, I really just want to milk a reference):

Let's say I tell everyone that I have a giant invisible bunny named Harvey that gives me advice and keeps me company. Do you believe me? There is text in this world that supports the existance of giant invisible bunnies named Harvey that hang out with people and give them advice. Now, you can't prove that I don't have a giant invisible bunny named Harvey hanging around giving me advice, but you all secretly pretty much know I don't have a giant invisible bunny named Harvey following me around and giving me advice. And I can't prove Harvey exists. But I'm the one waltzing around pretending Harvey does, and now I've placed on your lap the notion that you simply don't believe I have Harvey-when really, it should be up to me to get Harvey to us the typewriter and prove he exists.

So, because a theist has decided that they worship a zombie, I have to be relegated to simply not believing something that the other group more or less made up.

As such I cannot accept athiesm as a religon that simply 'belives' god doesn't exist, but should be people who are not along for the ride. Otherwise, I want people to start recognizing Harvey as my best friend.

Agnostics are true believers in the scientific process, there's simply not enough evidence to make any conclusions.

I'd just like to correct something which has been said a number of times so far, that there is no evidence that there is a god.

The universe exists, or if you are doubtful that it exists you must admit that we exist. We ARE. How can anything exist without being created, and how can anything be created without a creator? Something must have created the universe, and such a universal-creator is commonly referred to as "God".

Therefore, God/a god exists.

Well.. if you want to.. you can say that every human being believes in something.. if agnostics believe in the scientific method for proving or disproving god, then thats fine with me. I have the POV that theists (of any form) should first prove that there is a god. And I want undeniable proof, which I can - preferrably, sense with one or multiple or all of my natural senses.

It cannot be proven how the universe was created. It is beyond human capabilities (at this point and probably forever). The theory is that it was a big bang.. however its a theory, not proven (yet). As long as nobody knows how exactly the universe came to existence, we cannot say that it was created by a creator.

I half to disagree with the classifications you offer Incertonia. I dont follow any religion but i dont actively disbelieve in g_d so i cant be an atheist. I would vote for agnostic but i think people who claim to be agnostic are just wimps who arent willing to stand up for what they believe. I make an active choice not to believe but not because i disbelieve.

I think that puts me in the category of 'other'.

Agnostic doesn't mean you aren't willing to stand up for what you believe... I've had to stand up for my Agnosticism many times. My family (christian, with fundies on one side) hates that I don't think the Bible is law. It's not that I don't believe in God but I am not about to put faith in it. There simply is no evidence for there being a God, so I have no decision on the matter.

It's like having a coin flip in the air and believing for SURE that it will be heads... it could be either heads or tails, there is no evidence that it will be either.That's pretty much my situation as well, and pretty much the reason I'm agnostic.

I look at it this way--I don't know that there's a God, and I don't know that there isn't, and so I'm going to live my life accordingly, trying to be the best person I can be not because of some ethereal being who might or might not spank me once I'm done in this life, but because it fulfills me spiritually, and I'm far happier than I ever was as a believer as a result.

I half to disagree with the classifications you offer Incertonia. I dont follow any religion but i dont actively disbelieve in g_d so i cant be an atheist. I would vote for agnostic but i think people who claim to be agnostic are just wimps who arent willing to stand up for what they believe. I make an active choice not to believe but not because i disbelieve.

I think that puts me in the category of 'other'.

Agnostic doesn't mean you aren't willing to stand up for what you believe... I've had to stand up for my Agnosticism many times. My family (christian, with fundies on one side) hates that I don't think the Bible is law. It's not that I don't believe in God but I am not about to put faith in it. There simply is no evidence for there being a God, so I have no decision on the matter.

It's like having a coin flip in the air and believing for SURE that it will be heads... it could be either heads or tails, there is no evidence that it will be either.That's pretty much my situation as well, and pretty much the reason I'm agnostic.

I look at it this way--I don't know that there's a God, and I don't know that there isn't, and so I'm going to live my life accordingly, trying to be the best person I can be not because of some ethereal being who might or might not spank me once I'm done in this life, but because it fulfills me spiritually, and I'm far happier than I ever was as a believer as a result.
Here's where we more or less meet in the middle. I have a great sympathy for the atheist position, but haven't been able to shake the maybe that is really just a hold off from a religous upbringing.

I just get ansy when I run across stuff like this:
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

I half to disagree with the classifications you offer Incertonia. I dont follow any religion but i dont actively disbelieve in g_d so i cant be an atheist. I would vote for agnostic but i think people who claim to be agnostic are just wimps who arent willing to stand up for what they believe. I make an active choice not to believe but not because i disbelieve.

I think that puts me in the category of 'other'.

Agnostic doesn't mean you aren't willing to stand up for what you believe... I've had to stand up for my Agnosticism many times. My family (christian, with fundies on one side) hates that I don't think the Bible is law. It's not that I don't believe in God but I am not about to put faith in it. There simply is no evidence for there being a God, so I have no decision on the matter.

It's like having a coin flip in the air and believing for SURE that it will be heads... it could be either heads or tails, there is no evidence that it will be either.

exactly...i am agnostic, but that has NEVER stopped me from standing up for what i believe. the stereotype of agnostics being wimps is as offensive as a stereotype of all Christians being bigotted converting machines.

i believe we can't know for sure if the coin will come up heads or tails, and that it is wrong for anybody to claim either one is known; that is a lie, no matter which side they claim. only people who are not strong enough to live with the limitations of their own knowledge need to be religious or atheist, and i personally don't have any problem facing the fact that i simply don't know (and neither does anybody else).

Interesting that the majority says they are Agnostic. I wonder if a poll with a subject "Atheist, Agnostic or Religious?" would generate more votes. So far it seems the majority does not believe in a "god". Does that mean the majority in the US of A is not religious (contrary to what I read elsewhere)?

Interesting that the majority says they are Agnostic. I wonder if a poll with a subject "Atheist, Agnostic or Religious?" would generate more votes. So far it seems the majority does not believe in a "god". Does that mean the majority in the US of A is not religious (contrary to what I read elsewhere)?

i'd like to see that, too...maybe Incertonia will change it for us?

Atheists are in the impossible situation of having to prove a negative in order to prove they are correct.

Never thought I'd disagree with you..lol

I think you have that backwards.. it would be the believer who has the onus of trying to prove there is a God.. A lack of evidence in scientific terms is the same in many respects as evidence it's self. The fact that the lack of evidence of there being any God would actually strengthen the atheist argument, not the other way around. You can't prove some thing doesn't exist, when it doesn't exist.. ;)

It's the same as saying the onus would be on the person who claims there are no such things as invisible elves flying all around us.. :lol:

Innocent until proven guilty so to say.. I agree that believers should prove that there is in fact a god,which, given its nature of being "outside of the universe and time itself", it is impossible to prove its existence.

Atheists are in the impossible situation of having to prove a negative in order to prove they are correct.

Never thought I'd disagree with you..lol

I think you have that backwards.. it would be the believer who has the onus of trying to prove there is a God.. A lack of evidence in scientific terms is the same in many respects as evidence it's self. The fact that the lack of evidence of there being any God would actually strengthen the atheist argument, not the other way around. You can't prove some thing doesn't exist, when it doesn't exist.. ;)

It's the same as saying the onus would be on the person who claims there are no such things as invisible elves flying all around us.. :lol:

but that's just it...if you make the claim that THERE IS NO GOD you suddenly have to prove it. if you say "there is no evidence suggesting there is a God, therefore i will not live my life under the assumption He exists" that's fine, but when you say "God doesn't exist" you suddenly are making claims that must be defended.

the onus IS on somebody who claims that invisible elves aren't around us...can they prove that? of course not. it's not possible to prove a negative, so they shouldn't have made the claim to begin with. they should have simply pointed out that there is not evidence to suggest those elves exist.

Atheists are in the impossible situation of having to prove a negative in order to prove they are correct.

Never thought I'd disagree with you..lol

I think you have that backwards.. it would be the believer who has the onus of trying to prove there is a God.. A lack of evidence in scientific terms is the same in many respects as evidence it's self. The fact that the lack of evidence of there being any God would actually strengthen the atheist argument, not the other way around. You can't prove some thing doesn't exist, when it doesn't exist.. ;)

It's the same as saying the onus would be on the person who claims there are no such things as invisible elves flying all around us.. :lol:

but that's just it...if you make the claim that THERE IS NO GOD you suddenly have to prove it. if you say "there is no evidence suggesting there is a God, therefore i will not live my life under the assumption He exists" that's fine, but when you say "God doesn't exist" you suddenly are making claims that must be defended.

the onus IS on somebody who claims that invisible elves aren't around us...can they prove that? of course not. it's not possible to prove a negative, so they shouldn't have made the claim to begin with. they should have simply pointed out that there is not evidence to suggest those elves exist.

yes but people dont BELEIVE those elves dont exist, they just dont think its worth thinking about so they carry on regardless, not exactly beleiving the elves (or god, if you're talking about atheists again) dont exist but not bothering about it because the concept is too ridiculous to pay any attention to.

lack of proof doesnt prove a negative, it just convinces (some) people its not worth bothering about, therefore i dont think beleif is the right word to use here.

No offence to the agnostics who have posted here but:

1. Surely it is possible to tell whether or not there is a god/God, just by observing the way the world seems to work. I.E the scientific method. It's unscientific to be agnostic.

...

4. In my own personal point of view, I believe that we CAN tell whether there is a god or not (see number 1).


I believe C.S. Lewis said it best: "If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of those facts inside the universe- no more than an architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house." The fact is, religious belief stands outside the realm of science. That doesn't make it superior, don't misread me. But scientific analysis can never prove or disprove the existence of a god. Think of it this way - to a believer, the very fact that we exist is evidence of god. Is it unscientific to believe that? Not at all, it's a perfectly logical explanation following from an assumption (the existence of god). That's a point sociologist Max Weber made in dealing with religion - while it's true that the initial assumptions of religion may be irrational, the ensuing conclusions that flow out of those assumptions usually have logic to them and are equally rational as any other conclusions. It is a gross injustice to allege that the scientific method can be applied to the existence or non-existence of a god because the scientific method examines conclusions, not assumptions. You can run an experiment about what happens when you mix hydrogen and oxygen in the right quantities, but not about how the hydrogen and oxygen came into existence. Everything beyond that is theory and assumption.

Atheists are in the impossible situation of having to prove a negative in order to prove they are correct.

Never thought I'd disagree with you..lol

I think you have that backwards.. it would be the believer who has the onus of trying to prove there is a God.. A lack of evidence in scientific terms is the same in many respects as evidence it's self. The fact that the lack of evidence of there being any God would actually strengthen the atheist argument, not the other way around. You can't prove some thing doesn't exist, when it doesn't exist.. ;)

It's the same as saying the onus would be on the person who claims there are no such things as invisible elves flying all around us.. :lol:

but that's just it...if you make the claim that THERE IS NO GOD you suddenly have to prove it. if you say "there is no evidence suggesting there is a God, therefore i will not live my life under the assumption He exists" that's fine, but when you say "God doesn't exist" you suddenly are making claims that must be defended.

the onus IS on somebody who claims that invisible elves aren't around us...can they prove that? of course not. it's not possible to prove a negative, so they shouldn't have made the claim to begin with. they should have simply pointed out that there is not evidence to suggest those elves exist.

yes but people dont BELEIVE those elves dont exist, they just dont think its worth thinking about so they carry on regardless, not exactly beleiving the elves (or god, if you're talking about atheists again) dont exist but not bothering about it because the concept is too ridiculous to pay any attention to.

lack of proof doesnt prove a negative, it just convinces (some) people its not worth bothering about, therefore i dont think beleif is the right word to use here.

Those people might or might not believe that the flying elves exist, and their belief or unbelief doesn't really matter. It is their claim that matters. If someone were to say:

1.) I believe that there are no flying elves.

I would probably wouldn't question them. If they were to say:

2.) There are no flying elves.

Then I would ask: "What makes you so sure?"

I personally don't know if the flying elves exist or not. Ultimately, like you not bothering with God because it is so ridiculous a concept, I don't bother with the flying elves, but I don't make a strong claim either way, because if I were to do so, the burden of proof would be on me.

Unfortunately, for some people, it is a belief, and more than that, it's a claim.

If you want to say:

A: I believe that there is no God.

or

B: I believe there is a God.

You have just expressed a belief, obviously. Substitute the word "think" for belief and you would pretty much be saying the same thing. I don't have any problem with the fact that people state their beliefs, it is the claim that sometimes accompanies it that irks me.

If you say:

A: There is no God.

or

B: There is a God.

You would be making a very strong claim, and not one you are likely to be able to prove. I personally believe there is a God, but I won't make a claim that there is a God, because it is beyond my abilities to scientifically prove it. The strongest claim I make is that I believe there is a God, which substantiates itself.

DP-Damn Server

Hi guys!
I'm a Christian. I wasn't always, I converted at university, about 4 years 4 months ago, and before that, I was definitely an agnostic.
In theory, I took the agnostic position to its logical extreme; I felt that doubt was the only thing one could be certain of, and this doubt would extend to the validity of logical deduction, the information provided by my senses (see "The Matrix" for a stylish examination of the deconstruction of this assumption), and, most definitely, the existence of God. For a working rule of life, I assumed that being nice to people was inherently worthwhile.

Then I met God.

I don't mean a shiny being appeared to me and said "I'm God". It is difficult for me to explain to somone who is not a Christian what I am talking about, but I am now in a personal relationship with the God that the Bible talks about (BTW the Bible always assumes the existence of God, never even tries to prove the point), and I know He exists the same way I know my own body exists, or that logical deduction works ('a implies b' and 'b implies c' means 'a implies c' and so on).

Some of you are sure that I'm insane, or deluded, or naive, or gullible, or incapable of dealing with real life. I can't disprove any of that, I just know God is real, He wants me to live life His way, and that includes telling other people about Him, as appropriate. I believe that there is plenty of existing evidence pointing to God, but the thing about facts is that we use our minds to analyse them, and none of us, me included, have unbiased minds, so we will often reach the conclusion we want to reach. I believe that, at least in my case, God overrode the anti-God bias that existed in my mind for long enough for me to believe the message of the Bible and put my trust in Him, at which point everything changed for me, including all my perspectives.
I'd LOVE to hear some replies to this (remember, I have feelings too!)

Hi guys!
I'm a Christian. I wasn't always, I converted at university, about 4 years 4 months ago, and before that, I was definitely an agnostic.
In theory, I took the agnostic position to its logical extreme; I felt that doubt was the only thing one could be certain of, and this doubt would extend to the validity of logical deduction, the information provided by my senses (see "The Matrix" for a stylish examination of the deconstruction of this assumption), and, most definitely, the existence of God. For a working rule of life, I assumed that being nice to people was inherently worthwhile.

Then I met God.

I don't mean a shiny being appeared to me and said "I'm God". It is difficult for me to explain to somone who is not a Christian what I am talking about, but I am now in a personal relationship with the God that the Bible talks about (BTW the Bible always assumes the existence of God, never even tries to prove the point), and I know He exists the same way I know my own body exists, or that logical deduction works ('a implies b' and 'b implies c' means 'a implies c' and so on).

Some of you are sure that I'm insane, or deluded, or naive, or gullible, or incapable of dealing with real life. I can't disprove any of that, I just know God is real, He wants me to live life His way, and that includes telling other people about Him, as appropriate. I believe that there is plenty of existing evidence pointing to God, but the thing about facts is that we use our minds to analyse them, and none of us, me included, have unbiased minds, so we will often reach the conclusion we want to reach. I believe that, at least in my case, God overrode the anti-God bias that existed in my mind for long enough for me to believe the message of the Bible and put my trust in Him, at which point everything changed for me, including all my perspectives.
I'd LOVE to hear some replies to this (remember, I have feelings too!)

Like Kuhn pointed out, though, everything any of us produce (even scientists) is influenced by our own worldviews and ensuing expectations of what is supposed to happen. Personally, I like inductive research much more than deductive (the scientific method) because I think when you start with a hypothesis, you often place blinders on yourself by narrowing your focus too much. Of course, inductive research isn't very efficient. C'est la vie!

@Reactivists,

so you are a born-again christian, aren´t you??? Reborn christian??

Well: I have read your statement and congratulate you that you have found something your realy believe in. That must be a great gift. The catholics are speaking about the MERCY of having faith.

I´m not a member of any church or confession. I would call myself "without confession" (neither protesetant, not catholic and not any other church).
But given the traditional labeling I´m certainly not atheist (denying the existence of god), rather agnostic.
In our history we - the humans - have learned that we are not the centre of the world. First people in our western culture believed the earth would be the centre of the universe and flat and Jerusalem the centre of it (the bible only mentions three continents). Then we learned that it is round. We then learned that the sun is the centre of the universe and the solar system. But even that wasn´t entirely true. While it was the centre of our solar system but not of the universe. It is even not the centre of the galaxy. It is a small sun and a small solar system at the outbound of a galaxy, which is one around thousands or even millions of others.
We have learned that the earth was not made in seven days and that different kinds of animals are closely related. In fact all living creatures of this planet (which we know) are related. They have all the same DNA, made up of the same four substances. That´s giving evidence for the evolution theory.
Science has explained so many things that wonders and mysteries have disapeared pretty much.
However we always come to a point where we all don´t know further: and that´s the question: how did everything began.
What stood at the arch-begining. Even if science finds out what was there before the current universe began there would then be the question what was before that and that and that.
So we reach a point where questions can not be answered and where faith begins.
There has been the theory (early 20 th century) that in a scientific world religion would be in the decline. The opposite is true. In fact it sees a revival since the 1970s around the world - often politicised, used, sometimes - in my view - abused for evil deeds like in Iran or today by other Islamists. In other cases some religious leaders played a role in pushing for democracy - like the catholic church in Poland, the pope - or to a lesser degree the protestant church in East Germany where at least a few priests tried to give save harbour to the few regime critics.

Religions are playing an important role and are going to play an important role in the 21 th century.

I myself don´t believe in any of them. But I recognize them if they recognize the freedom of religion, to which belongs also the right not to have a religion.

No offence to the agnostics who have posted here but:

1. Surely it is possible to tell whether or not there is a god/God, just by observing the way the world seems to work. I.E the scientific method. It's unscientific to be agnostic.

...

4. In my own personal point of view, I believe that we CAN tell whether there is a god or not (see number 1).
um, huh?

the scientific method proves God? what the hell method are you using?

if one were to apply the principles of science directly to the issue of religion then the ONLY possible conclusion would be agnosticism. there is no alternative, since the evidence that we have cannot prove or disprove God or religion. if you think that you can prove God exists feel free to have a go of it, but until you can you probably shouldn't suggest that agnostics are unscientific.

@Reactivists,

so you are a born-again christian, aren´t you??? Reborn christian??

Well: I have read your statement and congratulate you that you have found something your realy believe in. That must be a great gift. The catholics are speaking about the MERCY of having faith.

I´m not a member of any church or confession. I would call myself "without confession" (neither protesetant, not catholic and not any other church).
But given the traditional labeling I´m certainly not atheist (denying the existence of god), rather agnostic.
In our history we - the humans - have learned that we are not the centre of the world. First people in our western culture believed the earth would be the centre of the universe and flat and Jerusalem the centre of it (the bible only mentions three continents). Then we learned that it is round. We then learned that the sun is the centre of the universe and the solar system. But even that wasn´t entirely true. While it was the centre of our solar system but not of the universe. It is even not the centre of the galaxy. It is a small sun and a small solar system at the outbound of a galaxy, which is one around thousands or even millions of others.
We have learned that the earth was not made in seven days and that different kinds of animals are closely related. In fact all living creatures of this planet (which we know) are related. They have all the same DNA, made up of the same four substances. That´s giving evidence for the evolution theory.
Science has explained so many things that wonders and mysteries have disapeared pretty much.
However we always come to a point where we all don´t know further: and that´s the question: how did everything began.
What stood at the arch-begining. Even if science finds out what was there before the current universe began there would then be the question what was before that and that and that.
So we reach a point where questions can not be answered and where faith begins.
There has been the theory (early 20 th century) that in a scientific world religion would be in the decline. The opposite is true. In fact it sees a revival since the 1970s around the world - often politicised, used, sometimes - in my view - abused for evil deeds like in Iran or today by other Islamists. In other cases some religious leaders played a role in pushing for democracy - like the catholic church in Poland, the pope - or to a lesser degree the protestant church in East Germany where at least a few priests tried to give save harbour to the few regime critics.

Religions are playing an important role and are going to play an important role in the 21 th century.

I myself don´t believe in any of them. But I recognize them if they recognize the freedom of religion, to which belongs also the right not to have a religion.

Hi Kybernetia!
I am indeed a born-again Christian, a claim that I know has a lot of bad press associated with it. I take it to mean that I became a Christian, not through my parents, or the culture I grew up in, but through a choice I made to follow Christ.
I find your congratulation paragraph a bit patronising :( , but just a bit :) . My faith in God is indeed a gift from God as well as my choice, which is the kind of combination you get a lot of in Christianity.

As to your comments about the history of understanding, I agree in parts and disagree in parts. Certainly humanity has come a long way in knowledge of both our world, the universe, and sub-atomic existence, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're right on everything now. I happen to believe that the theory (N.B. not a proven fact, there are no proven facts in science, only theories) of evolution is much weaker than many hold it to be, and that modern biblical creationism is a viable alternative theory that explains the data as well or better (I know this opens up a can of worms which might require another post, may have done so already, I haven't checked), and I have similar thoughts about current cosmological theories, as well as quite big chunks of quantum theory (don't get me started on psychology!).

My concern is not primarily with the social value (or lack thereof) of religion in general; my concern is with wanting to know the truth. I believe that truth exists independently of anyone's beliefs about it (again, a possible can of worms :wink: ), and I want to know the truth about human nature, my meaning of my life, what happens to us after we die, lots of questions like this. As you correctly point out, science has limitations. To examine spiritual questions with the scientific method is like trying to measure light intensity with a microphone; you record that nothing is there, because you are using the wrong measuring device.

I believe that God solved this problem for us by giving his knowledge to us direct, in person, as Jesus. Billions of people disagree with me, but, as I said, I believe truth is independent of what people think about it, because I believe truth comes straight from God. I could, in theory, be wrong about all this stuff, but I haven't heard any arguments that even come close to persuading me Christianity is wrong; could someone persuade you that one of your parents didn't exist while that parent was giving you a big hug?

As for freedom of religion, I believe we can all choose to believe whatever we like; this is an irrevocable ability, not a right. Choices have consequences, maybe eternal consequences if we are all going to last forever in one state or another (as I believe we do). You are free to choose your beliefs, but that doesn't mean all possible choices have the same consequence, or that all choices are equally right. We all have to make up our own minds, then stand ready to change our minds if necessary.

dp

Reactivists,


"I m indeed a born-again Christian, a claim that I know has a lot of bad press associated with it. I take it to mean that I became a Christian, not through my parents, or the culture I grew up in, but through a choice I made to follow Christ.
I find your congratulation paragraph a bit patronising , but just a bit . My faith in God is indeed a gift from God as well as my choice, which is the kind of combination you get a lot of in Christianity."
Well: Your group has indeed a terrible press. And especialy opponents of the current president chose to point out that he is a born-again christian as well.
I don´t want to discuss politics here. I have a more differentiated view on President Bush and don´t like the domonisation of him. But that doesn´t mean that I have to agree with anything he does.
I´m not an american: I don´t have to vote for either of the candidates, but I think Bush is likely to win.

"As to your comments about the history of understanding, I agree in parts and disagree in parts. Certainly humanity has come a long way in knowledge of both our world, the universe, and sub-atomic existence, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're right on everything now. I happen to believe that the theory (N.B. not a proven fact, there are no proven facts in science, only theories) of evolution is much weaker than many hold it to be, and that modern biblical creationism is a viable alternative theory that explains the data as well or better (I know this opens up a can of worms which might require another post, may have done so already, I haven't checked), and I have similar thoughts about current cosmological theories, as well as quite big chunks of quantum theory (don't get me started on psychology."
Well: I disagree with you here to a huge part.
There is a tendency in the US to ban the evolution theory because of religious believes away from school. I strongly critcisize that, since it is the current scientific knowledge. It may be true that one day someone finds a better theory, but until that is the case there is no reason to remove it. It may be a compromise to allow both theories to the schools but banning evolution from it is a thin I have to reject. It is an attempt to force religious believes on schools. This shouldn´t be the case. School should be free of any ideology or religious dogma.
I further add and criticize that the creationism is taking a religious writing to much in a literary sense.
It is impossible for me to say that the geological structures of our planet appeared such in e few thousand years as the creationists claim.
Furthernmore we stress that according to the bible the earth just has three continents: Asia, Europe and Africa.
So you in America wouldn´t exist :cry: ; well: I would since I´m from Europe. :wink:

"My concern is not primarily with the social value (or lack thereof) of religion in general; my concern is with wanting to know the truth. I believe that truth exists independently of anyone's beliefs about it (again, a possible can of worms ), and I want to know the truth about human nature, my meaning of my life, what happens to us after we die, lots of questions like this. As you correctly point out, science has limitations. To examine spiritual questions with the scientific method is like trying to measure light intensity with a microphone; you record that nothing is there, because you are using the wrong measuring device.
I believe that God solved this problem for us by giving his knowledge to us direct, in person, as Jesus. Billions of people disagree with me, but, as I said, I believe truth is independent of what people think about it, because I believe truth comes straight from God. I could, in theory, be wrong about all this stuff, but I haven't heard any arguments that even come close to persuading me Christianity is wrong; could someone persuade you that one of your parents didn't exist while that parent was giving you a big hug?"
You yourself said that you had a religious awekening: Before that you didn´t believe in it, but no you do.
It is impossible for you to prove that you are right, nor is it possible for me to prove you´re wrong.
Your comparison is a good one but it assumes the believe in a "father" in heaven. Some people believe in that, some don´t.
I think believe is actually a thing which is not completly a thing of our free will. That´s especially the case for a religious believe. My statement of the "mercy of faith" was serious in that respect. I respect people who really and sincerely believe in something. That can give them strenght as a matter of fact.
I can´t believe because of various reasons.
By the way: religious believes and their followers have not only have done good deeds but also a lot of evil in the name of God.
That shouldn´t be forgotten. I have therefore rather a distant relationship to religious organisations, especially the big churches.

"as for freedom of religion, I believe we can all choose to believe whatever we like; this is an irrevocable ability, not a right. Choices have consequences, maybe eternal consequences if we are all going to last forever in one state or another (as I believe we do). You are free to choose your beliefs, but that doesn't mean all possible choices have the same consequence, or that all choices are equally right. We all have to make up our own minds, then stand ready to change our minds if necessary."
Well: we all have to make choices every day in our personal life. And we have to bear the consequences. And many times it is not possible to foresee all consequences. But we have to bear that.
Regarding eternal life in which you believe: well: if it does exist it would actually not be suprising that everybody would face the consequences for his actions.

At the end a little polemic remark:
If you however believe that all who believe in Christ go to heaven regardless of their actions and all who aren´t I go to hell regardless of their actions I respectfully disagree with that.

i do not have a belief in a lack of a god
i dont belive in god
since there is in fact NO GOD there is no belief about it
its like santa clause, i dont BELIEVE that santa doesnt exist
he just doesnt

only agnostics have a maybe/maybe not point of view.

You have a belief about Santa Claus' (non)existence. You just expressed it. You have a belief about God's (non) existence. You just expressed it.

You are an atheist. Get over it.
i AM an athiest, i do not believe in god, gods or even the supernatural.

its not a belief. its just the way it is

*****************************
Actually... if you look at epistomology, you are making a Knowledge Claim, as opposed to a belief claim - you have to be in order to state it is a fact.

However, to make a Knowledge Claim there are three requirements:

1) That you make the claim - which you have by claiming it is a fact.
2) That you believe it - Therefore by MAKING a knowledge claim you are by requirement ALSO making a Belief claim... and
3) That it is true regardless of whether you believe it or not.

The third requirement on ANYTHING cannot be determined from within a system... as perceptions may be obscured or manipulated by the system itself.

The point is that you HAVE in fact made a belief claim whether you like it or not. I am also an Atheist, but if you are gonna belittle other argumentative positions, you should make certain that at least your semantics are correct.

Cheers from the happily secular state of Northern Lions Gate.

I´m not an american: I don´t have to vote for either of the candidates, but I think Bush is likely to win.

There is a tendency in the US to ban the evolution theory because of religious believes away from school. I strongly critcisize that, since it is the current scientific knowledge. It may be true that one day someone finds a better theory, but until that is the case there is no reason to remove it. It may be a compromise to allow both theories to the schools but banning evolution from it is a thin I have to reject. It is an attempt to force religious believes on schools. This shouldn´t be the case. School should be free of any ideology or religious dogma.
I further add and criticize that the creationism is taking a religious writing to much in a literary sense.
It is impossible for me to say that the geological structures of our planet appeared such in e few thousand years as the creationists claim.
Furthernmore we stress that according to the bible the earth just has three continents: Asia, Europe and Africa.
So you in America wouldn´t exist :cry: ; well: I would since I´m from Europe. :wink:

You yourself said that you had a religious awekening: Before that you didn´t believe in it, but no you do.
It is impossible for you to prove that you are right, nor is it possible for me to prove you´re wrong.
Your comparison is a good one but it assumes the believe in a "father" in heaven. Some people believe in that, some don´t.
I think believe is actually a thing which is not completly a thing of our free will. That´s especially the case for a religious believe. My statement of the "mercy of faith" was serious in that respect. I respect people who really and sincerely believe in something. That can give them strenght as a matter of fact.
I can´t believe because of various reasons.
By the way: religious believes and their followers have not only have done good deeds but also a lot of evil in the name of God.
That shouldn´t be forgotten. I have therefore rather a distant relationship to religious organisations, especially the big churches.

Well: we all have to make choices every day in our personal life. And we have to bear the consequences. And many times it is not possible to foresee all consequences. But we have to bear that.
Regarding eternal life in which you believe: well: if it does exist it would actually not be suprising that everybody would face the consequences for his actions.

At the end a little polemic remark:
If you however believe that all who believe in Christ go to heaven regardless of their actions and all who aren´t I go to hell regardless of their actions I respectfully disagree with that.

I'm not an American either; no comment on Bush. :wink:

I don't believe the theory of evolution should be banned in schools either, but I think, as you suggest, that the modern version of biblical creationism should be taught alongside it, and the students allowed to make up their own minds (incidentally, an interesting way to teach analysis of competing hypotheses). Saying evolution is "current scientific knowledge" is just saying that some people, including some scientists, believe it is a useful theory. I won't get into literal reading of the Bible or age of the earth stuff here, except to say poetry can contain truth, none of us were there, and all methods of dating depend on assumptions. I've never heard of the continents thing before, I might look into that.

I believe that you can believe in Jesus, but you are choosing not to at the moment. I hope that statement doesn't seem disrespectful to you; I think this about everyone who does not follow Jesus.

Much good and much evil has indeed been done in the name of many different gods, as well as my God. For me, this inspires self-analysis, the testing of my own motives and actions, not rejection of God.

I believe that everyone who truly repents will be with God forever, and anyone who does not repent cannot be with God in His heaven. 'Repent' does not mean 'say sorry', it means 'turn around', that is, begin to change my pattern of life to be the way God wants it. I believe anyone can start this, at any time, regardless of what they have done or said or thought in the past, but also, someone can stop doing it, or never do it, reject God, and choose hell because they refuse to serve Him in His heaven.

No offence to the agnostics who have posted here but:

1. Surely it is possible to tell whether or not there is a god/God, just by observing the way the world seems to work. I.E the scientific method. It's unscientific to be agnostic.

2. People say that atheists are anti-believers, but I've found agnostics to be much more anti-believer. It's almost like "Woo hoo, I'm better than you because I don't have religious ferver"

3. Agnostics seem to believe that all viewpoints taken up by religious people are direct commandments from the religion, when sometimes they are not. So basically, agnostics seem to think that religious people don't do anything unless they are told to by their religious beliefs.

4. In my own personal point of view, I believe that we CAN tell whether there is a god or not (see number 1).
No offence to the agnostics who have posted here but:

1. Surely it is possible to tell whether or not there is a god/God, just by observing the way the world seems to work. I.E the scientific method. It's unscientific to be agnostic.

2. People say that atheists are anti-believers, but I've found agnostics to be much more anti-believer. It's almost like "Woo hoo, I'm better than you because I don't have religious ferver"

3. Agnostics seem to believe that all viewpoints taken up by religious people are direct commandments from the religion, when sometimes they are not. So basically, agnostics seem to think that religious people don't do anything unless they are told to by their religious beliefs.

4. In my own personal point of view, I believe that we CAN tell whether there is a god or not (see number 1).

First, as I stated before, I am an Atheist myself, and I appreciate that you said it was your personal point of view...

That being said, scientific method may, or may not be able to tell us... scientific method does not solely rely upon deductive logic - it also requires INDUCTIVE logic, which cannot itself be proven.

Case in point, energy - we no longer believe that Heat is an actual substance, Caloric, the weight of which was measured by weighing the object before burning, then after burning, and the difference in weight was the amount of Caloric which was released.

We changed to an understanding of Energy specifically because the original paradigm did not adequately explain how things occur, whereas Energy does. (Please note that we sometimes still refer to energy in its original unit - Calories)

I TOTALLY agree with your points generally, and I LOVE this thread. My only point is that Scientific Method may not, itself, prove the existence, or non-existence - HOWEVER, I think that while Caloric MAY actually still exist, I think that it would be silly to believe in it - whether in the end Caloric theory is valid or not. (I will NOT be burning things to determine the amount of caloric in them ;) )

With that diatribe finished, as an Atheist, you can probably guess which which side of the coin offers the more satisfying explanations of how things in the world work.

Cheers all, and I LOVE this thread!

Agnostics are true believers in the scientific process, there's simply not enough evidence to make any conclusions.

Actually, the Scientific Method generally believes in the negative proposition until the positive assertion has been proven. Thus, while science may SPECULATE that the Branachium Phelociated Energy Particle exists, the onus is ALWAYS on the proving that it DOES exist - and UNTIL it HAS been proven, the assumption is ALWAYS that it does not.

The layman version would be, My family has believed that a particular species of elephant, which happens to be purple, and under 3 feet high exists, but is hiding deep in the darkest jungles of the south western region of the Amazon - it also is VERY good at hiding, and can become invisible. Thus, no one has ever been able to find it.

Does it follow that YOU should have to PROVE that it does NOT exist? No, of COURSE not. I do not expect you to say, "Well, there is no proof that it does NOT exist, therefore we should say that it MIGHT."

The evidence towards NOT believing such a RIDICULOUS assertion is that there is NO evidence that it DOES exist.

Also - along with the lack of evidence for the elephant, there has been how many thousands of years to accumulate evidence of the positive assertion?

Thus, ANYONE who states that I must logically be either theist OR AGNOSTIC because there is not enough evidence MUST therefore either believe that my miniature purple elephant exists, or that there isn't enough evidence to believe that it doesn't.

Anyone wanna sign up for my trip to the Amazon? :)

Agnostics are true believers in the scientific process, there's simply not enough evidence to make any conclusions.

Actually, the Scientific Method generally believes in the negative proposition until the positive assertion has been proven. Thus, while science may SPECULATE that the Branachium Phelociated Energy Particle exists, the onus is ALWAYS on the proving that it DOES exist - and UNTIL it HAS been proven, the assumption is ALWAYS that it does not.

The layman version would be, My family has believed that a particular species of elephant, which happens to be purple, and under 3 feet high exists, but is hiding deep in the darkest jungles of the south western region of the Amazon - it also is VERY good at hiding, and can become invisible. Thus, no one has ever been able to find it.

Does it follow that YOU should have to PROVE that it does NOT exist? No, of COURSE not. I do not expect you to say, "Well, there is no proof that it does NOT exist, therefore we should say that it MIGHT."

The evidence towards NOT believing such a RIDICULOUS assertion is that there is NO evidence that it DOES exist.

Also - along with the lack of evidence for the elephant, there has been how many thousands of years to accumulate evidence of the positive assertion?

Thus, ANYONE who states that I must logically be either theist OR AGNOSTIC because there is not enough evidence MUST therefore either believe that my miniature purple elephant exists, or that there isn't enough evidence to believe that it doesn't.

Anyone wanna sign up for my trip to the Amazon? :)

Agnostics are true believers in the scientific process, there's simply not enough evidence to make any conclusions.

Actually, the Scientific Method generally believes in the negative proposition until the positive assertion has been proven. Thus, while science may SPECULATE that the Branachium Phelociated Energy Particle exists, the onus is ALWAYS on the proving that it DOES exist - and UNTIL it HAS been proven, the assumption is ALWAYS that it does not.

The layman version would be, My family has believed that a particular species of elephant, which happens to be purple, and under 3 feet high exists, but is hiding deep in the darkest jungles of the south western region of the Amazon - it also is VERY good at hiding, and can become invisible. Thus, no one has ever been able to find it.

Does it follow that YOU should have to PROVE that it does NOT exist? No, of COURSE not. I do not expect you to say, "Well, there is no proof that it does NOT exist, therefore we should say that it MIGHT."

The evidence towards NOT believing such a RIDICULOUS assertion is that there is NO evidence that it DOES exist.

Also - along with the lack of evidence for the elephant, there has been how many thousands of years to accumulate evidence of the positive assertion?

Thus, ANYONE who states that I must logically be either theist OR AGNOSTIC because there is not enough evidence MUST therefore either believe that my miniature purple elephant exists, or that there isn't enough evidence to believe that it doesn't. THAT is what saying that Agnostics are the true believers of Scientific Method would do.

Anyone wanna sign up for my trip to the Amazon? :)

No offence to the agnostics who have posted here but:

1. Surely it is possible to tell whether or not there is a god/God, just by observing the way the world seems to work. I.E the scientific method. It's unscientific to be agnostic.

...

4. In my own personal point of view, I believe that we CAN tell whether there is a god or not (see number 1).
um, huh?

the scientific method proves God? what the hell method are you using?

if one were to apply the principles of science directly to the issue of religion then the ONLY possible conclusion would be agnosticism. there is no alternative, since the evidence that we have cannot prove or disprove God or religion. if you think that you can prove God exists feel free to have a go of it, but until you can you probably shouldn't suggest that agnostics are unscientific.

*****************8
Actually, the Scientific Method generally believes in the negative proposition until the positive assertion has been proven. Thus, while science may SPECULATE that the Branachium Phelociated Energy Particle exists, the onus is ALWAYS on the proving that it DOES exist - and UNTIL it HAS been proven, the assumption is ALWAYS that it does not.

It is not stated that standing on your head MIGHT cure cancer because there is no proof that it doesn't (We must be agnostic because there's no proof that it does or does not) - the evidence that it doesn't is that there has NEVER been any proof that it DOES!!!

The layman version would be, My family has believed that a particular species of elephant, which happens to be purple, and under 3 feet high exists, but is hiding deep in the darkest jungles of the south western region of the Amazon - it also is VERY good at hiding, and can become invisible. Thus, no one has ever been able to find it.

Does it follow that YOU should have to PROVE that it does NOT exist? No, of COURSE not. I do not expect you to say, "Well, there is no proof that it does NOT exist, therefore we should say that it MIGHT."

The evidence towards NOT believing such a RIDICULOUS assertion is that there is NO evidence that it DOES exist.

Also - along with the lack of evidence for the elephant, there has been how many thousands of years to accumulate evidence of the positive assertion?

Thus, ANYONE who states that I must logically be either theist OR AGNOSTIC because there is not enough evidence MUST therefore either believe that my miniature purple elephant exists, or that there isn't enough evidence to believe that it doesn't.

Anyone wanna sign up for my trip to the Amazon? :)

Sorry I posted my reply so many times - it kept telling me that it HADN'T posted because there were no posts on that topic...

And well... being the Atheist who believes that with no evidence that my reply DOES exist, I must believe that it DOESN'T... I assumed it DIDN'T and kept trying...

Well... lo and behold, God came to me and said, "Ye of little faith... heed mine own words, and believe the Word, and the Word said that thine own Post dost exist."

It did... in fact now it exists MANY MANY TIMES...

Again, my apologies :)

No offence to the agnostics who have posted here but:

1. Surely it is possible to tell whether or not there is a god/God, just by observing the way the world seems to work. I.E the scientific method. It's unscientific to be agnostic.

...

4. In my own personal point of view, I believe that we CAN tell whether there is a god or not (see number 1).
um, huh?

the scientific method proves God? what the hell method are you using?

if one were to apply the principles of science directly to the issue of religion then the ONLY possible conclusion would be agnosticism. there is no alternative, since the evidence that we have cannot prove or disprove God or religion. if you think that you can prove God exists feel free to have a go of it, but until you can you probably shouldn't suggest that agnostics are unscientific.

*****************8
Actually, the Scientific Method generally believes in the negative proposition until the positive assertion has been proven. Thus, while science may SPECULATE that the Branachium Phelociated Energy Particle exists, the onus is ALWAYS on the proving that it DOES exist - and UNTIL it HAS been proven, the assumption is ALWAYS that it does not.

It is not stated that standing on your head MIGHT cure cancer because there is no proof that it doesn't (We must be agnostic because there's no proof that it does or does not) - the evidence that it doesn't is that there has NEVER been any proof that it DOES!!!

The layman version would be, My family has believed that a particular species of elephant, which happens to be purple, and under 3 feet high exists, but is hiding deep in the darkest jungles of the south western region of the Amazon - it also is VERY good at hiding, and can become invisible. Thus, no one has ever been able to find it.

Does it follow that YOU should have to PROVE that it does NOT exist? No, of COURSE not. I do not expect you to say, "Well, there is no proof that it does NOT exist, therefore we should say that it MIGHT."

The evidence towards NOT believing such a RIDICULOUS assertion is that there is NO evidence that it DOES exist.

Also - along with the lack of evidence for the elephant, there has been how many thousands of years to accumulate evidence of the positive assertion?

Thus, ANYONE who states that I must logically be either theist OR AGNOSTIC because there is not enough evidence MUST therefore either believe that my miniature purple elephant exists, or that there isn't enough evidence to believe that it doesn't.

Anyone wanna sign up for my trip to the Amazon? :)

sorry, but you are incorrect. the scientific method doesn't assume the negative at all, it simply admits there is no evidence for it. the practical result is about the same, but it is a critical philosophical distinction; by assuming the negative the method would be making an assertion and, paradoxically, would then have to prove it.

trust me on this one, i have taken 3 philosophy of science and method courses over the last 2 years, and i am studying bioethics in grad school :).

No offence to the agnostics who have posted here but:

1. Surely it is possible to tell whether or not there is a god/God, just by observing the way the world seems to work. I.E the scientific method. It's unscientific to be agnostic.

...

4. In my own personal point of view, I believe that we CAN tell whether there is a god or not (see number 1).
um, huh?

the scientific method proves God? what the hell method are you using?

if one were to apply the principles of science directly to the issue of religion then the ONLY possible conclusion would be agnosticism. there is no alternative, since the evidence that we have cannot prove or disprove God or religion. if you think that you can prove God exists feel free to have a go of it, but until you can you probably shouldn't suggest that agnostics are unscientific.

*****************8
Actually, the Scientific Method generally believes in the negative proposition until the positive assertion has been proven. Thus, while science may SPECULATE that the Branachium Phelociated Energy Particle exists, the onus is ALWAYS on the proving that it DOES exist - and UNTIL it HAS been proven, the assumption is ALWAYS that it does not.

It is not stated that standing on your head MIGHT cure cancer because there is no proof that it doesn't (We must be agnostic because there's no proof that it does or does not) - the evidence that it doesn't is that there has NEVER been any proof that it DOES!!!

The layman version would be, My family has believed that a particular species of elephant, which happens to be purple, and under 3 feet high exists, but is hiding deep in the darkest jungles of the south western region of the Amazon - it also is VERY good at hiding, and can become invisible. Thus, no one has ever been able to find it.

Does it follow that YOU should have to PROVE that it does NOT exist? No, of COURSE not. I do not expect you to say, "Well, there is no proof that it does NOT exist, therefore we should say that it MIGHT."

The evidence towards NOT believing such a RIDICULOUS assertion is that there is NO evidence that it DOES exist.

Also - along with the lack of evidence for the elephant, there has been how many thousands of years to accumulate evidence of the positive assertion?

Thus, ANYONE who states that I must logically be either theist OR AGNOSTIC because there is not enough evidence MUST therefore either believe that my miniature purple elephant exists, or that there isn't enough evidence to believe that it doesn't.

Anyone wanna sign up for my trip to the Amazon? :)

sorry, but you are incorrect. the scientific method doesn't assume the negative at all, it simply admits there is no evidence for it. the practical result is about the same, but it is a critical philosophical distinction; by assuming the negative the method would be making an assertion and, paradoxically, would then have to prove it.

trust me on this one, i have taken 3 philosophy of science and method courses over the last 2 years, and i am studying bioethics in grad school :).

I graduated with an honours (Canadian spelling) degree in Philosophy, and did my share of ethics courses in ethics in Grad school as well, AND I started off as an astrophysics undegrad before switching to a degree in Philosphy and Political Science - IF we're bandying qualifications LOL!... and generally, the negative assertion does NOT require proof, UNLESS there has been a previous general consensus ON a positive, in which case the negative assertion takes on the form of a positive assertion, as it is asserting a change in the general thought. The negative assertion is the standard default.

I assert that I will NOT be hit by a meteor today - and by scientific method, I DO NOT need proof for this assertion - I need proof to the opposite assertion, however. (I MAY still get hit by one, but that would merely add VERY credible evidence to the positive assertion :) )

According to your statement, we should there still believe that Caloric exists, because NOONE EVER PROVED it does not exist!!! The negative assertion was NEVER proved. Yet science agrees that IT DOES NOT EXIST, because the positive assertion of the ENERGY paradigm was accepted instead.

Another philosophical example is the antithesis to the 'Gambler's Dilemma," wherein we can make knowledge claims to the negative, but NOT to the positive without proof. (ie. Stating that we KNOW James Wahller in Johannesburg didn't steal the library book in a local highschool in Seattle Washington, although there is no direct proof to that negative assertion. However, we CANNOT make a POSITIVE knowledge claim that ANY specific individual took the book WITHOUT proof to that positive assertion.

Anyways... just thought I would make the clarification, and I am GREATLY enjoying the debate - THANKS FOR MAKING IT FUN!!! :)

No offence to the agnostics who have posted here but:

1. Surely it is possible to tell whether or not there is a god/God, just by observing the way the world seems to work. I.E the scientific method. It's unscientific to be agnostic.

...

4. In my own personal point of view, I believe that we CAN tell whether there is a god or not (see number 1).
um, huh?

the scientific method proves God? what the hell method are you using?

if one were to apply the principles of science directly to the issue of religion then the ONLY possible conclusion would be agnosticism. there is no alternative, since the evidence that we have cannot prove or disprove God or religion. if you think that you can prove God exists feel free to have a go of it, but until you can you probably shouldn't suggest that agnostics are unscientific.

*****************8
Actually, the Scientific Method generally believes in the negative proposition until the positive assertion has been proven. Thus, while science may SPECULATE that the Branachium Phelociated Energy Particle exists, the onus is ALWAYS on the proving that it DOES exist - and UNTIL it HAS been proven, the assumption is ALWAYS that it does not.

It is not stated that standing on your head MIGHT cure cancer because there is no proof that it doesn't (We must be agnostic because there's no proof that it does or does not) - the evidence that it doesn't is that there has NEVER been any proof that it DOES!!!

The layman version would be, My family has believed that a particular species of elephant, which happens to be purple, and under 3 feet high exists, but is hiding deep in the darkest jungles of the south western region of the Amazon - it also is VERY good at hiding, and can become invisible. Thus, no one has ever been able to find it.

Does it follow that YOU should have to PROVE that it does NOT exist? No, of COURSE not. I do not expect you to say, "Well, there is no proof that it does NOT exist, therefore we should say that it MIGHT."

The evidence towards NOT believing such a RIDICULOUS assertion is that there is NO evidence that it DOES exist.

Also - along with the lack of evidence for the elephant, there has been how many thousands of years to accumulate evidence of the positive assertion?

Thus, ANYONE who states that I must logically be either theist OR AGNOSTIC because there is not enough evidence MUST therefore either believe that my miniature purple elephant exists, or that there isn't enough evidence to believe that it doesn't.

Anyone wanna sign up for my trip to the Amazon? :)

sorry, but you are incorrect. the scientific method doesn't assume the negative at all, it simply admits there is no evidence for it. the practical result is about the same, but it is a critical philosophical distinction; by assuming the negative the method would be making an assertion and, paradoxically, would then have to prove it.

trust me on this one, i have taken 3 philosophy of science and method courses over the last 2 years, and i am studying bioethics in grad school :).

I graduated with an honours (Canadian spelling) degree in Philosophy, and did my share of ethics courses in ethics in Grad school as well, AND I started off as an astrophysics undegrad before switching to a degree in Philosphy and Political Science - IF we're bandying qualifications LOL!... and generally, the negative assertion does NOT require proof, UNLESS there has been a previous general consensus ON a positive, in which case the negative assertion takes on the form of a positive assertion, as it is asserting a change in the general thought. The negative assertion is the standard default.

I assert that I will NOT be hit by a meteor today - and by scientific method, I DO NOT need proof for this assertion - I need proof to the opposite assertion, however. (I MAY still get hit by one, but that would merely add VERY credible evidence to the positive assertion :) )

According to your statement, we should there still believe that Caloric exists, because NOONE EVER PROVED it does not exist!!! The negative assertion was NEVER proved. Yet science agrees that IT DOES NOT EXIST, because the positive assertion of the ENERGY paradigm was accepted instead.

Another philosophical example is the antithesis to the 'Gambler's Dilemma," wherein we can make knowledge claims to the negative, but NOT to the positive without proof. (ie. Stating that we KNOW James Wahller in Johannesburg didn't steal the library book in a local highschool in Seattle Washington, although there is no direct proof to that negative assertion. However, we CANNOT make a POSITIVE knowledge claim that ANY specific individual took the book WITHOUT proof to that positive assertion.

Anyways... just thought I would make the clarification, and I am GREATLY enjoying the debate - THANKS FOR MAKING IT FUN!!! :)

I was raised theistic but at a certain point I grew up and started questioning it.

So I am now agnostic. I'm open to the possibility. Contrary to what my negativist "what's-the-point-you-don't-believe-in-God" ex would say. :roll:

No offence to the agnostics who have posted here but:

1. Surely it is possible to tell whether or not there is a god/God, just by observing the way the world seems to work. I.E the scientific method. It's unscientific to be agnostic.

...

4. In my own personal point of view, I believe that we CAN tell whether there is a god or not (see number 1).
um, huh?

the scientific method proves God? what the hell method are you using?

if one were to apply the principles of science directly to the issue of religion then the ONLY possible conclusion would be agnosticism. there is no alternative, since the evidence that we have cannot prove or disprove God or religion. if you think that you can prove God exists feel free to have a go of it, but until you can you probably shouldn't suggest that agnostics are unscientific.

*****************8
Actually, the Scientific Method generally believes in the negative proposition until the positive assertion has been proven. Thus, while science may SPECULATE that the Branachium Phelociated Energy Particle exists, the onus is ALWAYS on the proving that it DOES exist - and UNTIL it HAS been proven, the assumption is ALWAYS that it does not.

It is not stated that standing on your head MIGHT cure cancer because there is no proof that it doesn't (We must be agnostic because there's no proof that it does or does not) - the evidence that it doesn't is that there has NEVER been any proof that it DOES!!!

The layman version would be, My family has believed that a particular species of elephant, which happens to be purple, and under 3 feet high exists, but is hiding deep in the darkest jungles of the south western region of the Amazon - it also is VERY good at hiding, and can become invisible. Thus, no one has ever been able to find it.

Does it follow that YOU should have to PROVE that it does NOT exist? No, of COURSE not. I do not expect you to say, "Well, there is no proof that it does NOT exist, therefore we should say that it MIGHT."

The evidence towards NOT believing such a RIDICULOUS assertion is that there is NO evidence that it DOES exist.

Also - along with the lack of evidence for the elephant, there has been how many thousands of years to accumulate evidence of the positive assertion?

Thus, ANYONE who states that I must logically be either theist OR AGNOSTIC because there is not enough evidence MUST therefore either believe that my miniature purple elephant exists, or that there isn't enough evidence to believe that it doesn't.

Anyone wanna sign up for my trip to the Amazon? :)

sorry, but you are incorrect. the scientific method doesn't assume the negative at all, it simply admits there is no evidence for it. the practical result is about the same, but it is a critical philosophical distinction; by assuming the negative the method would be making an assertion and, paradoxically, would then have to prove it.

trust me on this one, i have taken 3 philosophy of science and method courses over the last 2 years, and i am studying bioethics in grad school :).

BTW... I TOTALLY agree that there is a distinction between proof and assumption... and yes the practical application will be viewed similarly.

My disagreement isn't with provability, as both Caloric may be proven TO exist, and I MAY get hit by a meteor - but rather that scienctific inquiry OFTEN makes assumptions to the negative until evidence to the positive is overwhelming.

My previous examples, plus the assumption that placing rocks against an injury will heal, until such time as holitistic medical practitioners PROVE that placing specific crystals DOES have medical value. The onus is on the positive, but the ACCEPTED belief until at least SOME satisfying evidence to the positive, is the negative.

In all scientific discovery, when the objective of the inquiry is placed at the top, the negative is assumed until the conclusion of the positive follows from the methods and results.

In PRECISELY the same way, I am an atheist in practical application, which does not discount that I may be proven WRONG, and I also am always looking for PROOF to the negative as well - as for me to state "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" WOULD place an onus of proof onto my position. (Which is why I always say I BELIEVE... not THE FACT IS" But having started as a Mormon Priest, and finding the evidence to the positive to be less than compelling, but the evidence to the opposite to be more compelling, I continue in that direction, and with that scientific assumption.

It is important to the inquiry that OTHERS also take the OPPOSITE position. This allows for a far more thorough inquiry.

If no position were taken in scientific inquiry, no progress would ever be made - in fact it would not be scientific inquiry, it would be random. HOPING that we make discoveries in the same method as penicillin was - LUCK.

Sometimes it works, but science hopes for a more structured and methodological approach.

BTW... I TOTALLY agree that there is a distinction between proof and assumption... and yes the practical application will be viewed similarly.

My disagreement isn't with provability, as both Caloric may be proven TO exist, and I MAY get hit by a meteor - but rather that scienctific inquiry OFTEN makes assumptions to the negative until evidence to the positive is overwhelming.

My previous examples, plus the assumption that placing rocks against an injury will heal, until such time as holitistic medical practitioners PROVE that placing specific crystals DOES have medical value. The onus is on the positive, but the ACCEPTED belief until at least SOME satisfying evidence to the positive, is the negative.

In all scientific discovery, when the objective of the inquiry is placed at the top, the negative is assumed until the conclusion of the positive follows from the methods and results.

In PRECISELY the same way, I am an atheist in practical application, which does not discount that I may be proven WRONG, and I also am always looking for PROOF to the negative as well - as for me to state "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" WOULD place an onus of proof onto my position. (Which is why I always say I BELIEVE... not THE FACT IS" But having started as a Mormon Priest, and finding the evidence to the positive to be less than compelling, but the evidence to the opposite to be more compelling, I continue in that direction, and with that scientific assumption.

It is important to the inquiry that OTHERS also take the OPPOSITE position. This allows for a far more thorough inquiry.

If no position were taken in scientific inquiry, no progress would ever be made - in fact it would not be scientific inquiry, it would be random. HOPING that we make discoveries in the same method as penicillin was - LUCK.

Sometimes it works, but science hopes for a more structured and methodological approach.

Methinks a fun little mental exercise is in order here.

Claim: The Universe is real. (Real being defined as: as humans --through the scientific method-- percieve it.)

Since I have no proof to support that claim I would have to assume that the universe is not real? That is a bit...worrying. Unless you're a nihilist, I suppose. :wink:

Agnostic fa shwa... if I see it, I'll most probably believe it

I am a Christian. I understand this puts me in the minority of NSers. Must convert all unbelievers...

http://www.huether-net.de/lsimg/ron76.jpg
King _Susa_
UN Delegate, August Dominion (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=august_dominion)

Methinks a fun little mental exercise is in order here.

Claim: The Universe is real. (Real being defined as: as humans --through the scientific method-- percieve it.)

Since I have no proof to support that claim I would have to assume that the universe is not real? That is a bit...worrying. Unless you're a nihilist, I suppose. :wink:[/quote]

I TOLD you I LOVE this thread LOL!!! :lol:

I might say that we have lots of evidence supporting the existence, much as I said earlier in the post that substantial evidence, not pure proof - enough proof to be persuasive - compelling... at least to get back to work after I am done here, or go play with my kids LMAO! There is enough evidence that to assume the positive assertion is more compelling, or less (as you said) worrying LMAO!!!

On the other hand - I went through my "How do we know ANYTHING exists" phase, wondering at night whether I might just be a brain in a vat, or a butterfly dreaming it was a human, etc. LMAO!!! It all WAS a little disturbing at times <Grinzzzz>

These are the questions that make it all fun and worthwhile - INCLUDING the existence of God... I love hearing the arguments FOR the existence... being content in one's own diliberations is highlyt unrewarding LOL! I try not to be condescending - I actually hate a lot of the Atheist arguments, as many contribute less to any real understanding than does just wimping out and going with the "First Mover" or "Design" arguments in the first place LMAO!

So the question is, am I a brain in a vat responding to your question? Or are you merely getting responses from the classic "Chinese Box" with prescribed responses to simulate interaction LOL!

Thanks for adding to the discussion - It just gets BETTER AND BETTER!!! :)

Cheers for now - gotta get back to work...

Thanks all!!! It's fun!

It's interesting how many of the religious people in this thread seem to have no problem with both modern evolutionary theory AND creationism taught. But the obvious question is, would you feel the same way if I wanted the muslim, jewish, hindu, buddhist, etc. beliefs about the beggining of the world taught as well? The obvious problem is that not only is this a matter of contention over the establishment clause, but this is also a matter of simple practicality. Basically, you can either not teach (and therefore not endorse) any religion. Or, you can teach religion (although that is violently in contravention of the establishment clause), but you essentially have to teach them ALL. One single complaint by a parent about their kid being taught religious dogma at school could bring the whole school system into a religion vs. Science war of sorts.

Methinks a fun little mental exercise is in order here.

Claim: The Universe is real. (Real being defined as: as humans --through the scientific method-- percieve it.)

Since I have no proof to support that claim I would have to assume that the universe is not real? That is a bit...worrying. Unless you're a nihilist, I suppose. :wink:

I TOLD you I LOVE this thread LOL!!! :lol:

I might say that we have lots of evidence supporting the existence, much as I said earlier in the post that substantial evidence, not pure proof - enough proof to be persuasive - compelling... at least to get back to work after I am done here, or go play with my kids LMAO! There is enough evidence that to assume the positive assertion is more compelling, or less (as you said) worrying LMAO!!!

On the other hand - I went through my "How do we know ANYTHING exists" phase, wondering at night whether I might just be a brain in a vat, or a butterfly dreaming it was a human, etc. LMAO!!! It all WAS a little disturbing at times <Grinzzzz>

These are the questions that make it all fun and worthwhile - INCLUDING the existence of God... I love hearing the arguments FOR the existence... being content in one's own diliberations is highlyt unrewarding LOL! I try not to be condescending - I actually hate a lot of the Atheist arguments, as many contribute less to any real understanding than does just wimping out and going with the "First Mover" or "Design" arguments in the first place LMAO!

So the question is, am I a brain in a vat responding to your question? Or are you merely getting responses from the classic "Chinese Box" with prescribed responses to simulate interaction LOL!

Thanks for adding to the discussion - It just gets BETTER AND BETTER!!! :)

Cheers for now - gotta get back to work...

Thanks all!!! It's fun!

You're welcome. I try to provide a little entertainment on the forum. :D

My question would be:

Do you have proof that the Universe exists in the way that we percieve it doing so? I'm quite sure the universe exists, the question is more one of modality than existence or non-existence. Hence my use of the words
"is real" instead of "exists". I don't equate the two.

I am a beiliever in god. I have to be since I'm a Boy Scout.

I am a beiliever in god. I have to be since I'm a Boy Scout.

my brother's a Scout, and doesn't believe in God.

Hmm. Lucky there are no philosphers willing to dive into a whole debate on the impossibility of absolutely proving anything on the basis that there are no absolute truths. I suspect such a debate may get quite painful...

Let's say there is a God. Let's also say that God subscribes to a Levitican morality (homosexuality, shellfish, warts and all). Would anyone else, like me, be queueing up to tell Him that he's wrong? Is that, erm, arrogant?

Hmm. Lucky there are no philosphers willing to dive into a whole debate on the impossibility of absolutely proving anything on the basis that there are no absolute truths. I suspect such a debate may get quite painful...

I am willing to do something similar, but noone has ever let me even get close to that point in a discussion on this forum except Bottle.

Let's say there is a God. Let's also say that God subscribes to a Levitican morality (homosexuality, shellfish, warts and all). Would anyone else, like me, be queueing up to tell Him that he's wrong? Is that, erm, arrogant?

I would be right there with you if I thought God subscribed to the Levitican morality. I don't think it would be arrogant, but it might incur some smiting. :wink:

DP

Hmm. Lucky there are no philosphers willing to dive into a whole debate on the impossibility of absolutely proving anything on the basis that there are no absolute truths. I suspect such a debate may get quite painful...

Let's say there is a God. Let's also say that God subscribes to a Levitican morality (homosexuality, shellfish, warts and all). Would anyone else, like me, be queueing up to tell Him that he's wrong? Is that, erm, arrogant?

I'd love to get into an impossibility-of-proof debate; my position is that all logical deduction requires axioms (also called assumptions/givens/postulates/beliefs) to deduce from, and since each person gets to choose these for themselves, there is no such thing as absolute proof. I believe there IS absolute truth, which is the stuff that God knows to be true; this brings me on to the next point.

Arguing with God is a self-defeating proposition, even if God does refrain from smiting you due to impertinence. Since God has total knowledge, perfect logic, infinite computational ability and unlimited understanding, what makes you think you could ever know better than Him? He's the one who designed the human brain in the first place, He runs the entire universe and follows every detail of our lives, and trust me, this is not a mental strain for Him (though the grief we cause Him beggars belief). There's a book in the Bible called Job, about a bloke who argues with God when bad things happen in his life, and after God replies, Job does the sensible thing and gives up.
BTW, I believe the Levitical rules were appropriate for the cultural context into which God gave them, but some of them are no longer considered binding by most Christians.

a·the·ist
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

ag·nos·tic
n.
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Hmm. Lucky there are no philosphers willing to dive into a whole debate on the impossibility of absolutely proving anything on the basis that there are no absolute truths. I suspect such a debate may get quite painful...

Let's say there is a God. Let's also say that God subscribes to a Levitican morality (homosexuality, shellfish, warts and all). Would anyone else, like me, be queueing up to tell Him that he's wrong? Is that, erm, arrogant?
Arguing with God is a self-defeating proposition, even if God does refrain from smiting you due to impertinence. Since God has total knowledge, perfect logic, infinite computational ability and unlimited understanding, what makes you think you could ever know better than Him? He's the one who designed the human brain in the first place, He runs the entire universe and follows every detail of our lives, and trust me, this is not a mental strain for Him (though the grief we cause Him beggars belief). There's a book in the Bible called Job, about a bloke who argues with God when bad things happen in his life, and after God replies, Job does the sensible thing and gives up.
BTW, I believe the Levitical rules were appropriate for the cultural context into which God gave them, but some of them are no longer considered binding by most Christians.
I'm sure that I don't have the debating skills to argue with god...However, I would be right with you for telling him that he's wrong, and then not worrying whether he believes or not. Of course, if he's all powerful, he could naturally convince me that he's right...but yes, absolutely up to telling him that he's wrong...I could deal with some smiting if I knew I was doing the right thing :)

Hmm. Lucky there are no philosphers willing to dive into a whole debate on the impossibility of absolutely proving anything on the basis that there are no absolute truths. I suspect such a debate may get quite painful...

Let's say there is a God. Let's also say that God subscribes to a Levitican morality (homosexuality, shellfish, warts and all). Would anyone else, like me, be queueing up to tell Him that he's wrong? Is that, erm, arrogant?
Arguing with God is a self-defeating proposition, even if God does refrain from smiting you due to impertinence. Since God has total knowledge, perfect logic, infinite computational ability and unlimited understanding, what makes you think you could ever know better than Him? He's the one who designed the human brain in the first place, He runs the entire universe and follows every detail of our lives, and trust me, this is not a mental strain for Him (though the grief we cause Him beggars belief). There's a book in the Bible called Job, about a bloke who argues with God when bad things happen in his life, and after God replies, Job does the sensible thing and gives up.
BTW, I believe the Levitical rules were appropriate for the cultural context into which God gave them, but some of them are no longer considered binding by most Christians.
I'm sure that I don't have the debating skills to argue with god...However, I would be right with you for telling him that he's wrong, and then not worrying whether he believes or not. Of course, if he's all powerful, he could naturally convince me that he's right...but yes, absolutely up to telling him that he's wrong...I could deal with some smiting if I knew I was doing the right thing :)

Hi Sliders!
I may have expressed myself badly, but you would not be "right with me" if you told God He was wrong, because I'm not gonna do that, because He is never wrong. The fact that you are disagreeing with Him shows your error, because He's always right; part of the description of God is that He's always right. Also, I really don't think you would be "doing the right thing" by sticking up for your mistaken opinions in front of the Almighty; the good and wise thing to do when in communication with God is, first, to be honest, and second, to decide to agree with whatever He says, even if that means changing your stance on subjects which are important to you.

Hmm. Lucky there are no philosphers willing to dive into a whole debate on the impossibility of absolutely proving anything on the basis that there are no absolute truths. I suspect such a debate may get quite painful...

Let's say there is a God. Let's also say that God subscribes to a Levitican morality (homosexuality, shellfish, warts and all). Would anyone else, like me, be queueing up to tell Him that he's wrong? Is that, erm, arrogant?
Arguing with God is a self-defeating proposition, even if God does refrain from smiting you due to impertinence. Since God has total knowledge, perfect logic, infinite computational ability and unlimited understanding, what makes you think you could ever know better than Him? He's the one who designed the human brain in the first place, He runs the entire universe and follows every detail of our lives, and trust me, this is not a mental strain for Him (though the grief we cause Him beggars belief). There's a book in the Bible called Job, about a bloke who argues with God when bad things happen in his life, and after God replies, Job does the sensible thing and gives up.
BTW, I believe the Levitical rules were appropriate for the cultural context into which God gave them, but some of them are no longer considered binding by most Christians.
I'm sure that I don't have the debating skills to argue with god...However, I would be right with you for telling him that he's wrong, and then not worrying whether he believes or not. Of course, if he's all powerful, he could naturally convince me that he's right...but yes, absolutely up to telling him that he's wrong...I could deal with some smiting if I knew I was doing the right thing :)

Hi Sliders!
I may have expressed myself badly, but you would not be "right with me" if you told God He was wrong, because I'm not gonna do that, because He is never wrong. The fact that you are disagreeing with Him shows your error, because He's always right; part of the description of God is that He's always right. Also, I really don't think you would be "doing the right thing" by sticking up for your mistaken opinions in front of the Almighty; the good and wise thing to do when in communication with God is, first, to be honest, and second, to decide to agree with whatever He says, even if that means changing your stance on subjects which are important to you.

Hmm. Lucky there are no philosphers willing to dive into a whole debate on the impossibility of absolutely proving anything on the basis that there are no absolute truths. I suspect such a debate may get quite painful...

Let's say there is a God. Let's also say that God subscribes to a Levitican morality (homosexuality, shellfish, warts and all). Would anyone else, like me, be queueing up to tell Him that he's wrong? Is that, erm, arrogant?
Arguing with God is a self-defeating proposition, even if God does refrain from smiting you due to impertinence. Since God has total knowledge, perfect logic, infinite computational ability and unlimited understanding, what makes you think you could ever know better than Him? He's the one who designed the human brain in the first place, He runs the entire universe and follows every detail of our lives, and trust me, this is not a mental strain for Him (though the grief we cause Him beggars belief). There's a book in the Bible called Job, about a bloke who argues with God when bad things happen in his life, and after God replies, Job does the sensible thing and gives up.
BTW, I believe the Levitical rules were appropriate for the cultural context into which God gave them, but some of them are no longer considered binding by most Christians.
I'm sure that I don't have the debating skills to argue with god...However, I would be right with you for telling him that he's wrong, and then not worrying whether he believes or not. Of course, if he's all powerful, he could naturally convince me that he's right...but yes, absolutely up to telling him that he's wrong...I could deal with some smiting if I knew I was doing the right thing :)

Hi Sliders!
I may have expressed myself badly, but you would not be "right with me" if you told God He was wrong, because I'm not gonna do that, because He is never wrong. The fact that you are disagreeing with Him shows your error, because He's always right; part of the description of God is that He's always right. Also, I really don't think you would be "doing the right thing" by sticking up for your mistaken opinions in front of the Almighty; the good and wise thing to do when in communication with God is, first, to be honest, and second, to decide to agree with whatever He says, even if that means changing your stance on subjects which are important to you.
I dunno about that - even the Almighty changes his opinion from time to time... take that in the Old Testiment, he believed in "An Eye for an Eye"

Then he has a complete turnabout in the New Testiment... and Jesus pulls in the "Turn the Other Cheek" routine...

Just 'cause he's god doesn't mean that he can't change his mind LOL!

Being All Powerful might merely mean you have more influence to change things when you change your mind LMAO!!! (Better hope you have a good Lobby with THAT political power LOL!)

Hmm. Lucky there are no philosphers willing to dive into a whole debate on the impossibility of absolutely proving anything on the basis that there are no absolute truths. I suspect such a debate may get quite painful...

Let's say there is a God. Let's also say that God subscribes to a Levitican morality (homosexuality, shellfish, warts and all). Would anyone else, like me, be queueing up to tell Him that he's wrong? Is that, erm, arrogant?
Arguing with God is a self-defeating proposition, even if God does refrain from smiting you due to impertinence. Since God has total knowledge, perfect logic, infinite computational ability and unlimited understanding, what makes you think you could ever know better than Him? He's the one who designed the human brain in the first place, He runs the entire universe and follows every detail of our lives, and trust me, this is not a mental strain for Him (though the grief we cause Him beggars belief). There's a book in the Bible called Job, about a bloke who argues with God when bad things happen in his life, and after God replies, Job does the sensible thing and gives up.
BTW, I believe the Levitical rules were appropriate for the cultural context into which God gave them, but some of them are no longer considered binding by most Christians.
I'm sure that I don't have the debating skills to argue with god...However, I would be right with you for telling him that he's wrong, and then not worrying whether he believes or not. Of course, if he's all powerful, he could naturally convince me that he's right...but yes, absolutely up to telling him that he's wrong...I could deal with some smiting if I knew I was doing the right thing :)

Hi Sliders!
I may have expressed myself badly, but you would not be "right with me" if you told God He was wrong, because I'm not gonna do that, because He is never wrong. The fact that you are disagreeing with Him shows your error, because He's always right; part of the description of God is that He's always right. Also, I really don't think you would be "doing the right thing" by sticking up for your mistaken opinions in front of the Almighty; the good and wise thing to do when in communication with God is, first, to be honest, and second, to decide to agree with whatever He says, even if that means changing your stance on subjects which are important to you.
I dunno about that - even the Almighty changes his opinion from time to time... take that in the Old Testiment, he believed in "An Eye for an Eye"

Then he has a complete turnabout in the New Testiment... and Jesus pulls in the "Turn the Other Cheek" routine...

Just 'cause he's god doesn't mean that he can't change his mind LOL!

Being All Powerful might merely mean you have more influence to change things when you change your mind LMAO!!! (Better hope you have a good Lobby with THAT political power LOL!)

"Eye for eye" is badly misunderstood. Exodus, chapter 21, verses 23-25 says "You shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." This was in the context of common practice at the time, which was escalating revenge (you hit me, I break your arm, you kill me, my family kill your family), and was laid down in the law given at Mount Sinai as a LIMITATION on punishment for injury, the maximum punishment allowable, to prevent the formation of feuds which could last generations.
Human society was at a pretty primitive state back then (c. 1500 B.C.), at least, it was for the Hebrews, and God was giving them a set of rules that were reasonable to that time. Jesus showed the world that we could do even better than these rules (which no-one could keep properly anyway) by putting our trust in God, and allowing Him to change our very nature into something that actually wants to be good, and succeeds at it more and more.

i really think that only holds if there is some chance that the thing i dont believe in DOES exist.


True, provided that you can provide specific, sufficient proof of the non-existence of the thing in question. Of course, it serves to note that it's harder to prove a negative than a positive.


so my lack of belief in santa is not just a belief. there is no santa. i honestly have never been to the north pole. i cant personally disprove the existance of santa.


Not that I'm arguing Santa exists, mind you (having seen my parents putting the gifts under the tree more than once, and having helped with it as well). However, either I've read your sentence wrong, or...

...you state there is no Santa. Then you say that you can't personally disprove the existence of Santa. So which is it? Or are you in fact stating your belief that there is no Santa, a belief that you have no conclusive proof for, as yet?


my lack of belief in the queen of england on the other hand would qualify as some kind of wacko nonsense.


True, but then too...have you ever met the Queen? Could she in fact be some highly-paid actor on TV?


god = santa


I know of no theological system that makes this claim, and I'd be interested to see your supporting evidence. Do you not realize, at this point, that you are making a statement of belief, of...in a perverse sense of the word...faith?

You claim there is no God. Good starting point. This is the part where you prove what you believe.

Someone stated that the onus of proof is on the believer in this argument. That's a rather cheap abdication, don't you think? I would contend that the burden of proof rests with anyone who makes a claim, whether theistic or atheistic in nature. The only people I can think of who are exempt from burden of proof are agnostics, who just don't care (sorry for the generalized simplification).

Of course, it depends on what people will accept as proof. Take my circumstance as a believer. I believe in God because I have personally experienced God's saving power. Which is great...I feel very blessed that God has chosen to reveal God's presence to me!

But in the end, it's personal experience. It's enough evidence for me...and only me. I can't hold it up to anyone else and say it is proof, much like I can't hold up my foot to you and prove that the heel is a bit itchy. You can't feel it, so how would you ever believe me when I say it?

Sorry...tangent.

Ashmoria, you've made a statement of your belief that there is no God, much as I have made a statement of my belief that there is a God. Please try and understand this. Your statements that there is definitely no God are no more than a belief...unless you've somehow managed to prove it (at which point, I'll need to see your proof before I believe you).


oh and i dont get upset. please dont think i would yell at anyone for their ideas no matter how harsh my posts might sometime read. you just seemed to want my real opinion which can be rather harsh.

Not really, except that you omit the necessary qualifying language...the whole "I think this..." disclaimer that is the hallmark of reasonable philosophical debate.

Cheers,
:D Aiera

Go Aiera.

I have but this to add:
Webster:

Pg. 70
Atheism: 1.a A disbelief in the existence of a deity b the doctrine that there is no deity 2. UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
pg. 23
agnostic: one who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable


For more info., see "Atheism is a religion (again) (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=154712[url)"

Well I'm personally agnostic, but I'll throw my two cents into the mix:

In the event God/Gods/Goddeses do exist, I believe that they would actually want somebody to question their existance, rather than blindly believe in their existance (because religion says so).

I've always found that whenever I question one of my own political/social/scientific beliefs in search of some conclusion, I ususally end up strengthening my belief through the self-questioning I have experienced

The same argument could be made upon the existance of some higher being.

gee and i thought i made such good sense

i am saying that even though i have no personal proof that there is no santa at the north pole since i have never been to the north pole, i have no doubt in his nonexistance and i honestly thought that no one would consider my ASANTAISM as a faith. in the same way that santa doesnt exist, god doesnt exist and in THAT way god = santa. i wasnt suggesting that god puts presents under the christmas tree. (and you were such a BAD BOY watching at christmas! as i told my son when he was 6 or so "people who dont believe in santa dont get presents from santa" )

as to the queen, i have no doubt that she DOES exist even though i have never so much as glimpsed her in real life. as far as i can prove all film footage of this so called queen is as fake as the moon landing! (just a lil joke) so that my point was that if i DIDNT believe in the existence of the queen of england that would make me a bit of a nut.

SO, as if you dint know, my point was that the objective reality of the the entity in question is relevant. or at least so it seems to me. my connection is WAY too slow and the server way too touchy tonight for me to look and see just what i was responding to.

so back to the god = santa thing. *hums 2 of these things belong together, 2 of these things are kind of the same* in a post where there are 2 possibilities santa or the queen of england. god = santa ( and im sure her majesty would be glad that i dint suggest that god = the queen of england)

and exactly, you believe in god and that is sufficient for you. i have no quarrel with that. i was not ( i think) trying to shake anyones faith and if a god = santa statement could do that, it wasnt much faith to begin with. i was annoyed at the suggestion that atheism is a kind of religion or faith.

im thinking that religious people see all questions in a religious format and thus athiesm must be a religion when it is in my mind the antithesis of religion (whatever that means) thats where my "quarrel" lies. there is no aspect of faith or belief in a lack of belief. is it a matter of "faith" that you dont believe in the hindu gods? i cant imagine that you would ever consider adding them to your nightly prayers. for you, as for me, they dont enter your consciousness (yeah yeah im assuming you arent a hindu and have never considered converting). its not a matter of BELIEF that they dont exist. they just dont exist. you arent preferring your god over theirs. their gods = santa

good lord i better stop rambling on. this thing is either never gonna post or itll post 14 times and ill look obsessive.

Well I'm personally agnostic, but I'll throw my two cents into the mix:

In the event God/Gods/Goddeses do exist, I believe that they would actually want somebody to question their existance, rather than blindly believe in their existance (because religion says so).

I've always found that whenever I question one of my own political/social/scientific beliefs in search of some conclusion, I ususally end up strengthening my belief through the self-questioning I have experienced

The same argument could be made upon the existance of some higher being.

Wow, you have shown the exact point of God putting the Tree in the garden...Very good.
*hands you an award*

(BTW, that's not supposed to be sarcastic)

I'm an agnostic bordering on a wierd merging of buddist/christian leanings. Btw, you can be agnostic/atheist and still be buddist, since buddism doesn't specify existance of a god. buddism is more of a belief system than a religion.

I'm an agnostic bordering on a wierd merging of buddist/christian leanings. Btw, you can be agnostic/atheist and still be buddist, since buddism doesn't specify existance of a god. buddism is more of a belief system than a religion.

you dont think that the cycle of birth death and rebirth, reincarnation, nirvana qualify it as a religion regardless of the existance of gods?

although i think that few buddhists in buddhist countries are athiests even if buddha himself didnt address the existance of gods.

I'm an agnostic bordering on a wierd merging of buddist/christian leanings. Btw, you can be agnostic/atheist and still be buddist, since buddism doesn't specify existance of a god. buddism is more of a belief system than a religion.

gee and i thought i made such good sense

You did. You just missed what you were aiming for. ;)


i am saying that even though i have no personal proof that there is no santa at the north pole since i have never been to the north pole, i have no doubt in his nonexistance and i honestly thought that no one would consider my ASANTAISM as a faith.


That's nice. You have no doubts. You, personally. That's the statement of faith you have chosen to make, it's what you believe.

And I have no doubts that there is a God. Would you say that I believe in God, or would you accept it as a valid statement when I say:

Even though I have never seen God, I have no doubt in his existence and I honestly thought that no one would consider my THEISM as a faith.

If you'd accept this, good for you. If you wouldn't, I'd be tempted to call you hypocritical. I have to accept the faith-statement you make to me as perfectly valid, and yet vice-versa does not apply?

Don't get caught up on the "Santa" issue here when/if you reply.

Moving on...


in the same way that santa doesnt exist, god doesnt exist and in THAT way god = santa.


Again, this is your belief. You make this statement with no supporting evidence, no spectacular (impossible?) proof that God for sure, 100%, no questions asked doesn't exist. You just say it and expect it to be taken as literal fact.

And yet, when I say God exists, you won't take that as literal fact. So does that make everything you say right and everything I say wrong? Or does it mean that each of us is making a faith-claim?


i wasnt suggesting that god puts presents under the christmas tree. (and you were such a BAD BOY watching at christmas! as i told my son when he was 6 or so "people who dont believe in santa dont get presents from santa" )


Yeah, well, I actually managed to stay awake, unlike my sisters. ;)
(also...wow...you're one of the few people who got my gender right!)

I wasn't suggesting that God puts presents under the tree either. I was speaking to my evidence, as a child of...what...8?...that there was no Santa. That was my personal evidence that there is no Santa...seeing Mom and Dad doing the job instead (and eating the cookies). ;)

Following me?

In the same vein, based on personal experience, I have conclusive proof that is specific and unique to me that God does exist, for God has indeed touched my life...in fact, God has saved my life.

There was a time (I was 16) when I made a conscious choice between suicide and confession/prayer in my battle against a sexual addiction. I hit the confessional in the morning and spent the whole day in a pew in the very church I was baptized in...praying for my very life. I didn't eat, and I think I might have gone to the bathroom once. And the next morning, I awoke, and felt none of the disgusting urges that for two years had haunted me. Not a one. Just like that...and I'd spent the last six months trying with everything that was in me to quit this habit I'd acquired.

But that's how God works, eh? God has given me evidence enough for me, but not the evidence that I could use to convince others. I take that as a message.


as to the queen, i have no doubt that she DOES exist even though i have never so much as glimpsed her in real life. as far as i can prove all film footage of this so called queen is as fake as the moon landing! (just a lil joke) so that my point was that if i DIDNT believe in the existence of the queen of england that would make me a bit of a nut.

Or Irish ;). (I'm 1/3rd Irish, so I can get away with that!)

And all I was doing was playing the Devil's Advocate. The funny thing about beliefs is that we, each of us who hold them, can be absolutely certain in them...we can

...have no doubt...

as it were. You have no doubt that God does not exist. I have no doubt that God does exist. Which of us is right if we are speaking an absolute? We cannot both be, and yet each of us is certain and, I would assume, has evidence to back up our certainty. I certainly do. Do you?

Alternatively, which of us is wrong if we are speaking a belief?


SO, as if you dint know, my point was that the objective reality of the the entity in question is relevant. or at least so it seems to me. my connection is WAY too slow and the server way too touchy tonight for me to look and see just what i was responding to.


The objective reality of the entity in question has bearing, but what defines an objective reality? Keep in mind that the merely empirical is not alone enough to disprove the existence of a being such as God. If God exists, then the empirically observable (i.e. the Universe) exists as a subset of God — God does not exist as a subset of the Universe.

It's kind of like a fish in a fishtank. The fishtank is a subset of the larger room, but is the fish in the fishtank able to perceive that there is no water outside the fishtank? No, the fish cannot accurately observe the nature of anything across the fishtank's glass walls.


so back to the god = santa thing. *hums 2 of these things belong together, 2 of these things are kind of the same* in a post where there are 2 possibilities santa or the queen of england. god = santa ( and im sure her majesty would be glad that i dint suggest that god = the queen of england)


Perhaps, but what of the divine right of kings? (and queens?). ;) Sorry, that's the Irish talking again.

The point is, you're making an unsubstantiated claim about the nature of God...namely that there IS no God. Okay, but on what basis is this conclusion made?

I know there's no Santa, and this was proven to a little 8-year old boy when he saw his parents putting out presents. I also know there is a God, and I'm alive today because of the trust I placed in God to save that life. That is my basis for (a) disbelief in Santa and (b) belief in God. What is the basis for your disbelief in both?


and exactly, you believe in god and that is sufficient for you. i have no quarrel with that. i was not ( i think) trying to shake anyones faith and if a god = santa statement could do that, it wasnt much faith to begin with. i was annoyed at the suggestion that atheism is a kind of religion or faith.


But it is!


Faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.


Belief:
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.


Religion:
1 a. the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b. (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3. scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Doctrine:
1 a. something that is taught b. a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA c. a principle of law established through past decisions d. a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations

And lastly...

Atheism:
1 a. a disbelief in the existence of deity b. the doctrine that there is no deity


Okay, I think we have all we need. Working in reverse...from Merriam-Webster, we see that atheism is defined as a disbelief in God (which is equivalent to a belief in the opposite of the belief in the existence of God). Note also that it is a doctrine that states there is no deity.

Okay...doctrine, which M-W defines as a system of principles or positions, or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief (dogma).

Hmmm...moving on to religion, which is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour or faith.

A quick look over to...belief. That would be the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something (like, for example, the mental acceptance of the validity of the statement "there is no God"?). Or, alternatively, it could be something believed or accepted as true (as some might accept it as true that there "is no God"), especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons (last I checked, atheists were a group of persons who accepted as true the assertion that there "is no God", right?).

And because the religion definition had the f-word in it, we turn now to...faith, which is many things, including a set of principles or beliefs. Like the belief that there "is no God".


im thinking that religious people see all questions in a religious format and thus athiesm must be a religion when it is in my mind the antithesis of religion (whatever that means) thats where my "quarrel" lies.


Then you misunderstand religion. All religion is, in truth, is a system of beliefs. That's it. It doesn't matter what is believed in...God, no God, pink elephants, green fairies, or anything else you'd care to name!


there is no aspect of faith or belief in a lack of belief.


Atheism is not a lack of belief. That's what we call agnosticism.


is it a matter of "faith" that you dont believe in the hindu gods?


I have all sorts of Apologistic theories on the existence of other gods besides the Christian God. There are a number of verses in the Bible that give credence to the claim that there are in fact other gods...though none so powerful as God, to be sure.


i cant imagine that you would ever consider adding them to your nightly prayers. for you, as for me, they dont enter your consciousness (yeah yeah im assuming you arent a hindu and have never considered converting).


They don't enter my conscious thought in the sense that I'd pray to them. They may well be there, though I can't say I care if they are.


its not a matter of BELIEF that they dont exist. they just dont exist. you arent preferring your god over theirs. their gods = santa


But I do believe they exist, and there appears to be Scriptural evidence to back up that conclusion. That's irrelevant next to the fact that God is...I guess a good term would be "above" or perhaps "higher than" them, and so I put my faith in God and God alone. I don't need to look to Shiva or any other such deity.


good lord


Funny...why would an atheist use such terms? A tad inconsistent, no?


i better stop rambling on. this thing is either never gonna post or itll post 14 times and ill look obsessive.

Meh...it usually posts. Sometimes it "claims" to fail, but in reality it posts just fine. My suggestion is when you finish typing, before you hit SUBMIT, do a "Select-All" on what you just wrote and save it to a text file on your hard drive. ;)

Cheers,
:D Aiera

ya but i dont have to be consistant because i dont have a faith to follow. i can in fact go into a rant on the meaning of "its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven" at the drop of a hat. i can take people to task for incorrect christian theology.

i have no real desire to debate the existance of god. you believe, i dont, i really have no problem with that. i am glad that you have that comfort in your life. better thinkers than i will ever be have thoroughly debated the topic and if either of us was really interested in it we would read THEM not each other.

i am just telling you as frankly as you tell me that you have faith, that there is no element of faith im my atheism.

i know that for some atheism is a big time rejection of all they were brought up to believe or a kind of rebellion against their parents or society. for me its not

i
just
dont
believe

i dont belong to any clubs, i dont follow anyones teaching on the subject it dont substitute humanism for theism

i dont believe.

i dont see why that is so hard to understand that you have to make it into some kind of religion on its own.

ya but i dont have to be consistant because i dont have a faith to follow. i can in fact go into a rant on the meaning of "its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven" at the drop of a hat. i can take people to task for incorrect christian theology.


So can I, and I often do. Eye of a needle? Not a literal needle. ;) A door in a wall, but set about a foot above the ground. A camel can get through it, but because of the way the joints in their legs are structured, they almost always trip going through.


i have no real desire to debate the existance of god. you believe, i dont, i really have no problem with that. i am glad that you have that comfort in your life. better thinkers than i will ever be have thoroughly debated the topic and if either of us was really interested in it we would read THEM not each other.


I do, sometimes, read just that. I love Thomas Aquinas' various writings on the subject, and Berkeley's Observation is a fascinating mental puzzle.


i am just telling you as frankly as you tell me that you have faith, that there is no element of faith im my atheism.


Then you're more an agnostic, not an atheist. All I'm attempting to do here is clarify a terminology.


i know that for some atheism is a big time rejection of all they were brought up to believe or a kind of rebellion against their parents or society. for me its not


That's a good thing. Rebellion only gets one so far. ;)


i
just
dont
believe


Cool. Except that's not atheistic...not by the definition, at any rate. Strictly speaking, and the definitions are up there if you need to check this, atheism is like anything else...it's a set of beliefs. You do believe in something...you believe there is no God.


i dont belong to any clubs, i dont follow anyones teaching on the subject it dont substitute humanism for theism


And scores of non-denominational Christians will say the same thing. I'm not trying to launch into a debate of is-there-or-isn't-there-a-God, but it sets off my ire when people refuse to accept that just because they don't believe in God doesn't mean they don't believe in something.


i dont believe.


...in God. You believe, as an atheist, that there is no God. But it's still a belief, a tenet of what is basically faith.


i dont see why that is so hard to understand that you have to make it into some kind of religion on its own.

What's hard to understand is why you won't acknowledge it as a belief of its own. Yes...you "just don't believe"...in God! When you say "I don't believe", you mean you don't believe in God!

Unless you believe in nothing, but that's also not atheism...that's nihilism.

But just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that you don't believe in something. You believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that there is no God. That's your belief system...and what's a religion, if not a belief system. You need not believe in God to be religious, and religion is not a "dirty word" like..."eeew, religion! I don't want it on me!".

You hold a belief. You hold a belief that there is no God. You are part of a system of beliefs (which is ALL a religion is by definition) that states there is no God. You share this with thousands of other people. Millions, even.

It's just a semantic thing, but let's get it right!
:D Aiera

So can I, and I often do. Eye of a needle? Not a literal needle. ;) A door in a wall, but set about a foot above the ground. A camel can get through it, but because of the way the joints in their legs are structured, they almost always trip going through.

:D Aiera

see now? you have me *THIS* close to ranting about how wrong you are to focus on how to get around what jesus told us to do.

see now? you have me *THIS* close to ranting about how wrong you are to focus on how to get around what jesus told us to do.

Wrong? I'm curious now...

...see, I've had this confirmed to me by two different Biblical schoars with backgrounds in Hebrew and Greek. What was in English translated to "eye of the needle" is a poetic way of talking about those cool wall ports with the "Arabic" shaping to them. It's just a doorway...but unique in the sense that the bottom of the door is a good foot (or more) above the ground. Camels have odd joints in their legs...when they go through these wall ports, they trip.

What does this passage tell us? Not that the rich can never get into Heaven. Heck, that's not it at all. But what it is saying is that great wealth...or, more importantly, the pursuit of great wealth...can be a stumbling block to the kingdom of Heaven, not a complete blockade.

In the broader sense, Jesus is reminding us that the pursuit of the material is ultimately a vain pursuit, and can get in the way of what we should be seeking — those things that lead to Heaven.

:D Aiera

Just to clear something up, you don't have to be any part of any organized anything to be in a religion. I've heard this arguement way too many times from atheists.

You can be a Christian without ever stepping foot into a church building.
You can be a Christian without ever speaking to another Christian.
You can be a Christian with one simple statement: I believe that Christ died for me and was raised again after three days.
That's it.
That's all.
No signing.
No membership.
No nothing.

So, atheists claim they're not a religion because they're not organized. Well, some religions aren't organized either. Being organized isn't what makes something a religion.

Remember?4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Do I see organization? No. Organization plays no part in this.

And Aiera...
There are a number of verses in the Bible that give credence to the claim that there are in fact other gods...though none so powerful as God, to be sure.

Eh? :?
Not trying to call you a liar, cuz i know you know this stuff better than me...but, uh, where is this now?

More info.
Atheism is a religion (again) (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=154712[url)

I´ve read through the posts on this most interesting topic, but I must say, there isn´t much fact in any of the arguments.

So here´s a fact that I would like to present that would strongly support a believers point of view.

Roger Penrose, A famous British mathematician, and close friend of Stephen Hawking, wanted to find the probability of human existence being a coincidence. He concluded, once all relevant factors were taken into account, that the probability of a human existing in our universe, on a planet that can sustain us, is 1: 10^10^123.
Thats 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000.

That number is huge. Uncomprehensible to most. Not only that, but according to current mathematical theories, a probability of 1: 10^50 is 0 probability.

Now I´m no genious, but even I can see that the number Penrose produced, is way larger than 10^50. Given this information, one would conclude that coincidental existance is impossible.

Now if one believes that there is no God, they´re free to do so, they also believe that creationism is false. If creationism is false, then that leaves coincidence, and if coincidence has been proven impossible, then creation is the only other possibility. Therefore, a creator must exist, ie God.

see now? you have me *THIS* close to ranting about how wrong you are to focus on how to get around what jesus told us to do.

Wrong? I'm curious now...

...see, I've had this confirmed to me by two different Biblical schoars with backgrounds in Hebrew and Greek. What was in English translated to "eye of the needle" is a poetic way of talking about those cool wall ports with the "Arabic" shaping to them. It's just a doorway...but unique in the sense that the bottom of the door is a good foot (or more) above the ground. Camels have odd joints in their legs...when they go through these wall ports, they trip.

What does this passage tell us? Not that the rich can never get into Heaven. Heck, that's not it at all. But what it is saying is that great wealth...or, more importantly, the pursuit of great wealth...can be a stumbling block to the kingdom of Heaven, not a complete blockade.

In the broader sense, Jesus is reminding us that the pursuit of the material is ultimately a vain pursuit, and can get in the way of what we should be seeking — those things that lead to Heaven.

:D Aiera

ya ya tell yourself that

now im not saying you are wrong about the gate
im saying you are wrong about the point of the parable
the point is not that you can be rich and go to heaven. DUH
to focus on the size of the gate is to overlook that jesus is telling you that if money is what you are all about, you aint gettin in.

read the parable again.....

rich guy comes up to jesus. say "i am the coolest guy ever, i go to church every sunday, take all the sacraments, tithe, i even sing in the choir, what does a really cool guy like ME need to do to get into heaven?" he KNOWS that jesus is gonna hand him a "get into heaven free" card.

jesus says to him "take everything you own, sell it, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow me"

you of course remember that jesus said a similar thing to the apostles before he even had gotten going on that preaching thing. he walked up to them out of the blue and said "come with me and i will make you fishers of men" they didnt say "ok let me just take this catch to market first so that the fam doesnt starve" they dropped what they were doing and followed him.

the rich guy just slinks away. his money is too important to him. yes he could have gotten into heaven, all he had to do is take everything he had, sell it, give the proceeds to the poor and follow jesus. he couldnt do it.

imagine if that happened to YOU. in real life. jesus taps you on the shoulder and says drop everything and come with me. kinda makes you quiver to think about it doesnt it? would you say NO? would you slink away because it would mean not making enough money in your life?

so why focus on the size of the gate? are you thinking that means you can be KINDA rich and still get in? you can KINDA follow jesus? that if you are very careful in how you bundle up your stuff you wont trip on the way through? who cares what the size of the gate is? jesus just told you something, he tapped you on the shoulder, dont think you can work your way around it. DO IT.

Ok, I don't see what you're trying to say, Ashmoria...
Are you saying rish people can't get into heaven?
Or are you saying they can, but they have to give up all of their money first?
Cuz both are wrong.

Or, are you saying that the reasoning behind the parable is pointless? Because that's doesn't make any sense.

Ok, I don't see what you're trying to say, Ashmoria...
Are you saying rish people can't get into heaven?
Or are you saying they can, but they have to give up all of their money first?
Cuz both are wrong.

Or, are you saying that the reasoning behind the parable is pointless? Because that's doesn't make any sense.

well im just saying that JESUS told the guy to his face to sell everything.

and that to try to get around it is probably a mistake.

there arent that many places in the new testament where jesus flat out tells someone a requirement to get into heaven. i think that christians ignore that sort of thing at their own peril.

id rather believe jesus than the interpretation of jesus by someone else.

how much more plain did the man have to be? you are confused because you dont want to believe it. take a look at what it really says in the bible. how can anyone worry about the size of the eye of a needle when jesus just told you what he wants of you? whats so confusing?

I have been to classes based on various religions so I know all of the sides to the choices. I like to classify myself as Atheist.

Ok, I don't see what you're trying to say, Ashmoria...
Are you saying rish people can't get into heaven?
Or are you saying they can, but they have to give up all of their money first?
Cuz both are wrong.

Or, are you saying that the reasoning behind the parable is pointless? Because that's doesn't make any sense.

well im just saying that JESUS told the guy to his face to sell everything.

and that to try to get around it is probably a mistake.

there arent that many places in the new testament where jesus flat out tells someone a requirement to get into heaven. i think that christians ignore that sort of thing at their own peril.

id rather believe jesus than the interpretation of jesus by someone else.

how much more plain did the man have to be? you are confused because you dont want to believe it. take a look at what it really says in the bible. how can anyone worry about the size of the eye of a needle when jesus just told you what he wants of you? whats so confusing?

An atheist who is a scriptural literalist?

Now I have seen everything.

DP

yeah i hope i dont get excommunicated by the atheist for it

I´ve read through the posts on this most interesting topic, but I must say, there isn´t much fact in any of the arguments.

So here´s a fact that I would like to present that would strongly support a believers point of view.

Roger Penrose, A famous British mathematician, and close friend of Stephen Hawking, wanted to find the probability of human existence being a coincidence. He concluded, once all relevant factors were taken into account, that the probability of a human existing in our universe, on a planet that can sustain us, is 1: 10^10^123.
Thats 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000.

That number is huge. Uncomprehensible to most. Not only that, but according to current mathematical theories, a probability of 1: 10^50 is 0 probability.

Now I´m no genious, but even I can see that the number Penrose produced, is way larger than 10^50. Given this information, one would conclude that coincidental existance is impossible.

Now if one believes that there is no God, they´re free to do so, they also believe that creationism is false. If creationism is false, then that leaves coincidence, and if coincidence has been proven impossible, then creation is the only other possibility. Therefore, a creator must exist, ie God.

Using your exact argument, the likelihood of an individual with the abilities, powers, complexity that this supposed creator would have to possess would have to greater than the chances of humans existing. Does that mean that God must have a creator too?

In EVERY system as evolved as ours is, there is LIKELY to be be SOMETHING as 'improbable' as we are... It is actually likely that SOMETHING that improbable will exist.

If ANYTHING exists in the universe, then it MUST exist one way or another (Odds of that are exactly 1:1 - pretty darned good by casino rules). However ELSE it might have ended up would be EQUALLY as improbably as the present one is. There are AS MANY possible end results as there are odds against this one. BUT it had to result in a universe one way or another, and THIS one had JUST as good a possibility as ANY of the others... the only difference is that this happened to be the one we ended up with. (We happened to get the complete Works of Shakespeare randomly typed by Monkeys instead of the complete Works of Yeats LMAO!)

If we HADN'T gotten this universe, the other unlikely existing thing would have been arguing that there must be a god because THAT possible universe was so unlikely, and so was ITS own existence LOL!)

Hydrogen:
SO LONG as there is at least a minimal initial set of rules on a single element, then the rest shall act accordingly. As compounds are created from the initial element through the set rules, then extended rules based upon the initial set of rules shall come about - STRICTLY because they have stemmed FROM the initial set of rules. This would be EXACTLY why the universe were so orderly.)

These basic set of rules would be the ones that extend to HYDROGEN. The entire universe, if created from a single element, with a structured set of rules applying to it, will eventually create a VERY complex, and indeed MIRACULOUS system... NO MATTER WHAT! AND, as the rules are descriptive, NOT prescriptive, no one needs to create THEM either... they just explain.

H, or gOd
Now... given the above, we are left with the REAL two choices... that hydrogen (a simple element) somehow came into existence, or that an infinitely incredible supreme being with all knowing, all powerful abilities, with such a great complexity that no human can understand it just happened to exist with no creator, no designer, no mover... just happened to exist.

The likelihood of such a complex being spontaneously existing is far less likely that a simple element expanding from a singularity. I'll put my money on the latter.

Before anyone argues that god didn't spontaneously come into existence, that it ALWAYS existed... we could easily apply the same rule to hydrogen, and say all material always existed, but was constrained by the rules of a singularity. If we cannot say material always existed, then you cannot say that god always existed.

Which brings another point... We have heard the argument of design, that such a complex system must have a creator... well then the SAME rule must apply to the creator, as it must be equally complex... if this god is NOT so complex, then the rules applicable to hydrogen should easily suffice as our so called god.

The argument of the first mover... cause and effect... all events occur as the result of a previous action. First movers argue that as there MUST have been a beginning to the universe, there must have been a first action/move, and whatever applied the first move is what we call god.

Well... similarly, if this rule is an absolute... all moves require a preceding move, then THAT first move must have been moved by something else... see above for elaboration - if NOT, then their argument CANNOT work, because it is no LONGER an absolute. But now we are just back to where we were ANYWAYS LOL! If it does NOT apply to god, then it isn't an absolute... and therefore the argument cannot be used - because it is also possible, and at least as likely, that SOMETHING else could have been the first mover... (See also, Big Bang :) )

This is ONLY because first movers say that the mover/move relationship is an absolute. If it is not an absolute, then it falls apart... but if it IS an absolute, then it must apply to god too, or it ISN'T an absolute - and the argument that it "Exists outside of the universe" is not particularly satisfying LOL. Because I could just as easily argue that the rules of the singularity exist outside the universe as we know it (Although we know how it works SO INCREDIBLY SHORTLY AFTER the big bang). This is actually a far more satisfying argument, as we can mathematically describe a singularity, and see the results of physical manifestations of them (ie. Black Holes) which actually PRODUCE x-rays, etc. - seemingly out of nothing... (A Creator ;) )

The funny thing is that I would say that I am still in a sense a spiritual person - which is NOT to say that I believe in a soul, per se... but rather that we are ALL a part of an incredible system, which continues to change, and create. IT has allowed us to exist, and its complexity is amazing. Applied Chaos theory will allow variants while still applying limits... creating both an orderly and complex system. If I believe in a god - my god is a system, not some individual. And we are ALL part of that system... and as an atheist, I am PROUD to be a part of that system. (Especially given the alternatives LMAO!)

Anyways... can't wait to see more postings... I love how the dialogue has progressed.

ok WHERE DID YOU FIND THIS THREAD?

i was posting on it yesterday and it disappeared
i figured it was god telling me to mind my own business.

so where the F was it??

does this count as a miracle?