NationStates Jolt Archive

Choose yours.

Theism: Belief in a god or gods
Spritualism: Religious belief without a god or gods (basically all religions other than god-based religions)
Agnosticism
Atheism: There is no god.

I created this poll so that I would see how NSers would fall under the four categories. My direct definitions may be imperfect, but I defined them to encompass all things: religion - god-based and non-god-based, and non-religion - no-god-based and agnosticism.

There is no god, and even if there were, absent eternal divine punishment He would be irrelevant to my life.

There is no god

Why are you so sure there is no god that you have taken this position?

Choose yours.

Theism: Belief in a god or gods
Spritualism: Religious belief without a god or gods (basically all religions other than god-based religions)
Agnosticism
Atheism: There is no god.

I created this poll so that I would see how NSers would fall under the four categories. My direct definitions may be imperfect, but I defined them to encompass all things: religion - god-based and non-god-based, and non-religion - no-god-based and agnosticism.
Why no def. for Agnosticism?

Why no def. for Agnosticism?

Officially, because I do not believe it is necessary.

Unofficially, because I'm not sure whether agnosticism is "I don't know whether there is a God or not" or "We cannot know whether there is a God or not".

Why are you so sure there is no god that you have taken this position?

I see it as absurd. How can an immaterial being exist, and be capable of omnipotence, no less?

But I'm not really concerned with whether or not God exists. That's a side-show. If I could accept divine morality and divine decree I might well accept God regardless of my current materialism, but I can't.

Agnostic. What's the point in worrying about something you cannot possibly prove?

Officially, because I do not believe it is necessary.

Unofficially, because I'm not sure whether agnosticism is "I don't know whether there is a God or not" or "We cannot know whether there is a God or not".It's both...

and throw in "If there is a god, we don't think any religion has it right" for good measure.

Officially, because I do not believe it is necessary.

Unofficially, because I'm not sure whether agnosticism is "I don't know whether there is a God or not" or "We cannot know whether there is a God or not".
So your undecided on the definition of Agnosticism:D

I see it as absurd. How can an immaterial being exist, and be capable of omnipotence, no less?

Just because you cannot properly conceive of such a being doesn't rule out the possibility.

So your undecided on the definition of Agnosticism:D

Lol, ironically yes!

Just because you cannot properly conceive of such a being doesn't rule out the possibility.

No, it doesn't. That's why I said "absurd" and not impossible.

It's possible that x and not x can both be true, also. The fact that we cannot properly conceive of such a state does not rule out the possibility.

The fact that we cannot properly conceive of such a state does not rule out the possibility.

Therefore agnosticism is the most logical position.

Agnostic - I don't give a damn whether or not their is a God, a god, a Godess, or a giant three headed toad with herpes running the universe (Although the last does seem plausible on some days), because I won't be morally blackmailed into doing something (because that is the height of immorality, letting someone else lead you around by the nose).

Therefore agnosticism is the most logical position.

No, not really, since atheism does not require certainty.

No, not really, since atheism does not require certainty.

However, an open mind will accept the possibility of a god, and although it might reject it with insufficient evidence, it would still accept it as a theory, since we do not know how we came to be.

Agnostic, and I'm surprised there aren't more atheists. Illogical absolutes are normally so prevalent.

However, an open mind will accept the possibility of a god, and although it might reject it with insufficient evidence, it would still accept it as a theory, since we do not know how we came to be.

I acknowledge that the theory exists, and I acknowledge that it is possible.

I also hold it to be absurd, and the only thing that would overcome that feeling of absurdity is faith - which, with my present philosophical views, I cannot achieve in regard to the deity.

No, not really, since atheism does not require certainty.
I'm fairly cerain it does.:D

I am agnostic simply because I do not have the force of belief for the rock-hard faith of both Theists and Atheists that there is/is not a god. But let me say this, if there is a God, I sure hope He derives some amusement from the Gigantic clusterfuck that is humanity/society...because otherwise...whats the point of His creation? I sure think its funny, though.

I acknowledge that the theory exists, and I acknowledge that it is possible.

I also hold it to be absurd, and the only thing that would overcome that feeling of absurdity is faith - which, with my present philosophical views, I cannot achieve in regard to the deity.

How is it absurd? The mere fact that it works well to explain the creation of the universe marks it as a reasonable possibility. Yes, "God did it" can explain the creation of the universe.

We do not have any knowledge on the existence of a supernatural being, so it would be illogical to assert a position.

because otherwise...whats the point of His creation?

Life. If I were omnipotent, I'd derive great elation from creating life and observing it flourish. It would give me a sense of purpose.

Life. If I were omnipotent, I'd derive great elation from creating life and observing it flourish. It would give me a sense of purpose.
How about when its blowing the shit out of itself?

How about when its blowing the shit out of itself?

That would make me sad, but interested too. I wouldn't worry much about it, though, if it wiped itself out, I'd just create it again, perfecting it each time without making it autonomous.

How is it absurd? The mere fact that it works well to explain the creation of the universe marks it as a reasonable possibility.

No, it doesn't work well at all. Why did God create the universe? Why would he want to? How can an immaterial being create matter, anyway? What does it mean to be omnipotent? How is it possible?

Life. If I were omnipotent, I'd derive great elation from creating life and observing it flourish. It would give me a sense of purpose.

Even the great big stupid, senseless mess it is? Humanity is particularly like this. To each their own, I suppose... But as for myself...I think if He exists, he's just fucking around. Having a bit of fun. Better than creating life, in my opinion...of course, having no first-hand experience, I wouldn't know.

I just don't like life in general. Not my life, but life itself.

How about when its blowing the shit out of itself?

I wonder if god plays GTA with real humans?

I voted atheist but, agnostic as well.

Agnostic as I can't see any way to know if god(s) exists or not. Atheist as the available evidence shows no support for any such existance.

BTW, by your definitions, spiritualists are atheists. Furthermore, by more standard definitions, we're all agnostics as none of us know if god(s) exist.

No, it doesn't work well at all. Why did God create the universe? Why would he want to? How can an immaterial being create matter, anyway? What does it mean to be omnipotent? How is it possible?

We don't know and we can't know because we are not on the same level of being as him (if he exists).

Those questions do not rule out the possibility of a god creating the universe as we know it, they only question the alledged disambiguity in religions' claims of a god(s).

Even the great big stupid, senseless mess it is? Humanity is particularly like this.

Perhaps I would enjoy seeing humanity pull through these difficult times, knowing that if they fail, I can just try again while seeking a better balance.

I voted atheist but, agnostic as well.

Agnostic as I can't see any way to know if god(s) exists or not. Atheist as the available evidence shows no support for any such existance.

Simply because we have insufficient evidence isn't enough to rule out the possibility.

If a theist came to me and explained his theory of how the universe came to be through the will of a god, I would not object to it, unless he presented it as fact.

BTW, by your definitions, spiritualists are atheists.

I stated in the original post that the definitions were a rough guide. I basically wanted to know how many people were religious (broken down into god-religious, and non-god-religious), and how many people were non-religious (broken down into agnostic and atheist).

Furthermore, by more standard definitions, we're all agnostics as none of us know if god(s) exist.

Perception. Theists know God exists, and atheists know God does not exist. Otherwise, they'd all be agnostics. Their perceptions are that they know what the truth is.

Perhaps I would enjoy seeing humanity pull through these difficult times, knowing that if they fail, I can just try again while seeking a better balance.

Enjoy watching suffering, do you? Well, whatever...but the thing is, it'd get a bit boring after the billionth repition, trying to find the "balance," wouldn't it? And in any case, I don't think there can be a balance between perfection and free will, and that eventually, humanity will always destroy itself.

And besides, wouldn't you be real sad if your most amazing creation went and blew itself up? Have you know Empathy, oh All-knowing One?

Enjoy watching suffering, do you?

Not necessarily. I enjoy observing elation, but it must be contrasted by the occasional suffering to give it value.

Well, whatever...but the thing is, it'd get a bit boring after the billionth repition, trying to find the "balance," wouldn't it? And in any case, I don't think there can be a balance between perfection and free will, and that eventually, humanity will always destroy itself.

I could go into a lengthy explanation of why I would want to create self-sustaining intelligent life-forms, but I'll answer it with this quote:

"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest." Friedrich Nietzsche - Thus Spoke Zarathustra

And besides, wouldn't you be real sad if your most amazing creation went and blew itself up? Have you know Empathy, oh All-knowing One?

That would all be part of the process, and I would accept the imperfection that lead to my creation's demise.

That would make me sad, but interested too. I wouldn't worry much about it, though, if it wiped itself out, I'd just create it again, perfecting it each time without making it autonomous.

I think you meant "with making it autonomous" as I assume you meant to allow free will. I'm guessing you're christian and believe in the all-omni god. One of the more illogical constructs theists have come up with.

Omniscience rules out free will, not just for us but, for the god as well. An omniscient god knows before creating the universe exactly how everything will go. IOW, for the christian deity, it knows about "the fall" it knows it will destroy the world in the mythical flood and it knows that I will pick French Vanilla Creamer this morning and it knows that all of these things must happen because it can't be any other way. An omniscient god can't decide to not make the universe because humanity will sin becase it already knows it is going to make the universe and that humanity will sin. Simply put, an omniscient god can't be surprised, pleased or disappointed as it already know exacty what every outcome will be.

As you can see, omniscience, in and of itself, also eliminates omnipotence and omnibenevolence. One could go on to show the specific illogicalness of those qualities but, it's quite unneccesary at this point.

My belief:
Don't get so caught up in the means that you forget about the end. Focus on your values and principles, not the contents of some book or claims of what will come after death.

I think you meant "with making it autonomous" as I assume you meant to allow free will.

That's exactly what I meant.

I'm guessing you're christian and believe in the all-omni god.

Do not label and judge me based on assumptions. I will not confirm the validity of your claim, and will only remind you to seek out enough evidence to make an assertion. Nowhere in this thread did I provide sufficient information to evaluate my religious beliefs. Well, maybe I did...

One of the more illogical constructs theists have come up with.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Omniscience rules out free will, not just for us but, for the god as well. An omniscient god knows before creating the universe exactly how everything will go. IOW, for the christian deity, it knows about "the fall" it knows it will destroy the world in the mythical flood and it knows that I will pick French Vanilla Creamer this morning and it knows that all of these things must happen because it can't be any other way. An omniscient god can't decide to not make the universe because humanity will sin becase it already knows it is going to make the universe and that humanity will sin. Simply put, an omniscient god can't be surprised, pleased or disappointed as it already know exacty what every outcome will be.

I agree. An omniscient God would be an autonomous God. It would be no God at all, it would just be a creator that creates, much like a virus replicates.

Now we beg the question: why must our creator be omnipotent, omniscient, and/or omnipresent?

As you can see, omniscience, in and of itself, also eliminates omnipotence and omnibenevolence. One could go on to show the specific illogicalness of those qualities but, it's quite unneccesary at this point.

Yes, omniscience causes the God to simply be a program... though one might bring up the point that we ourselves are also mere programs.

My belief:
Don't get so caught up in the means that you forget about the end. Focus on your values and principles, not the contents of some book or claims of what will come after death.

Problem is, the book claims that if you live your life in this way, you'll get eternal salvation. It's kind of hard to ignore that and just live your life, even though it's just a book.

Not necessarily. I enjoy observing elation, but it must be contrasted by the occasional suffering to give it value.

Okay. Fair enough. Although it is my belief that the Suffering in the world far outweighs the elation.


I could go into a lengthy explanation of why I would want to create self-sustaining intelligent life-forms, but I'll answer it with this quote:

"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest." Friedrich Nietzsche - Thus Spoke Zarathustra

But, if that is the case, then why not crweate beings on par with Himself? Surely these would make beeter companios than humanity. And also, if God wants companionship, why does He not interact with us? Surely interaction provides better companionship than outside observation.


That would all be part of the process, and I would accept the imperfection that lead to my creation's demise.

Accept it, and then change it so that that imperfection does not reoccur, and then start over? I dunno, but that doesn't sound very much like acceptance.

I am an agnostic theist.

(And not a deist, so there.)

Agnostic. What's the point in worrying about something you cannot possibly prove?
Happily, agnosticism involves neither worry nor proof.

But, if that is the case, then why not crweate beings on par with Himself? Surely these would make beeter companios than humanity. And also, if God wants companionship, why does He not interact with us? Surely interaction provides better companionship than outside observation.

:eek:

God's a lurker (in the great forum of life :p )

It's possible that x and not x can both be true, also. The fact that we cannot properly conceive of such a state does not rule out the possibility.
You have a strange definition of "possible"!

Okay. Fair enough. Although it is my belief that the Suffering in the world far outweighs the elation.

Then perhaps this is one of the initial disastrous attempts?

But, if that is the case, then why not crweate beings on par with Himself? Surely these would make beeter companios than humanity. And also, if God wants companionship, why does He not interact with us? Surely interaction provides better companionship than outside observation.

In a previous post, me and Boreal Tundra discussed the omniscience (and I believe it applies to omnipotence as well) of a god. If a god is omniscient and omnipotent, then the whole aspect of god and all personality of god is lost as god become a mere program.

Perhaps god cannot create beings as powerful as himself, much like we can create lesser beings, but not artificially create humans. Also, he might derive greater joy at observing these beings prosper and evolve into a higher form of being rather than simply giving them their omnipotence.

As for companionship, knowing that there's a little species on a little planet gradually progressing and evolving would be enough "companionship". This "companionship" is merely a concept that does not require direct contact. Allow me to elaborate:

Creating an autonomous species would be terribly uninteresting and unrewarding. Creating a species that would learn of his existence and begin worshipping him would once again lack any kind of interest or reward because they are only worshipping him due to him power, rather than expanding their horizons.

However, creating a species that would be designed to evolve beyond their programming and constantly evolve and expand their boundaries of knowledge would bring the creator true company, much more than the previous two scenarios. Because in this way, he has created something that can now create other things (i.e. us humans, we can create robots and programs and eventually more complex things). He has created an infantile species that gradually progressed to become creators themselves.

That is the reward of his creation. Observing his creation become creators, and be able to relate to them indirectly.

Accept it, and then change it so that that imperfection does not reoccur, and then start over? I dunno, but that doesn't sound very much like acceptance.

I'm not sure I know what you mean, though I do suspect my choice in words may have contributed to this unnecessary conundrum.

He would analyze what went wrong and try again, until he can truly get (indirect) companionship.

As I said, I was guessing, based on your statements which I've heard paraphrased numerous times. Reading the previous post, apparently you aren't unless perhaps you're an unusual, non-omni deity variant.


Simply because we have insufficient evidence isn't enough to rule out the possibility.

I don't, I'm merely not accepting it without evidence. Do you accept all claims without evidence?

While it's possible god(s) exist, without any evidence, even after centuries of searching (by those wanting to find it,) I've no reason to accept it.

If a theist came to me and explained his theory of how the universe came to be through the will of a god, I would not object to it, unless he presented it as fact.

Do you object to it if presented as a fact? If so, why? Probably the same reasons I would object (and no, I could care less what anyone believes as long as they don't present those beliefs as knowledge.)

I stated in the original post that the definitions were a rough guide. I basically wanted to know how many people were religious (broken down into god-religious, and non-god-religious), and how many people were non-religious (broken down into agnostic and atheist).

OK, unfortunately, the terms and definitions you used don't reflect the question you wanted to ask.

Perception. Theists know God exists, and atheists know God does not exist.

In normal usage, wrong on both counts. Theists believe god(s) exist, atheists either believe god(s) don't exist (strong/hard atheism) or don't believe god(s) exist. The difference between knowledge and belief is very important, knowledge is falsifiable, beliefs are not.

Otherwise, they'd all be agnostics.

Correct, a- meaning without and gnosos meaning knowledge. Agnostics are without knowledge which says nothing about their beliefs or lack there-of.

Then perhaps this is one of the initial disastrous attempts?



In a previous post, me and Boreal Tundra discussed the omniscience (and I believe it applies to omnipotence as well) of a god. If a god is omniscient and omnipotent, then the whole aspect of god and all personality of god is lost as god become a mere program.

Perhaps god cannot create beings as powerful as himself, much like we can create lesser beings, but not artificially create humans. Also, he might derive greater joy at observing these beings prosper and evolve into a higher form of being rather than simply giving them their omnipotence.

As for companionship, knowing that there's a little species on a little planet gradually progressing and evolving would be enough "companionship". This "companionship" is merely a concept that does not require direct contact. Allow me to elaborate:

Creating an autonomous species would be terribly uninteresting and unrewarding. Creating a species that would learn of his existence and begin worshipping him would once again lack any kind of interest or reward because they are only worshipping him due to him power, rather than expanding their horizons.

However, creating a species that would be designed to evolve beyond their programming and constantly evolve and expand their boundaries of knowledge would bring the creator true company, much more than the previous two scenarios. Because in this way, he has created something that can now create other things (i.e. us humans, we can create robots and programs and eventually more complex things). He has created an infantile species that gradually progressed to become creators themselves.

That is the reward of his creation. Observing his creation become creators, and be able to relate to them indirectly.



I'm not sure I know what you mean, though I do suspect my choice in words may have contributed to this unnecessary conundrum.

He would analyze what went wrong and try again, until he can truly get (indirect) companionship.

Remember, though, God could be omnipotent without omniscience. Just a thought.

You know, you might be right. I don't think so, but its a better theory and better-argued than many I've heard recently. I applaud you. Have a drink. I rather dislike the thoery as a whole, due to the immense faith it requires to believe in a creator in the first place, but it raises an interesting question. If this is indeed the case, than is the "Creator" a being created by another, more pwerful "creator?" And if so, how far back does this chain extend? Does it end with some omnipotent being, or simply extend forever? Is it, in fact, turtles all the way down? In any case, something to ponder. I am off to bed.

As I said, I was guessing, based on your statements which I've heard paraphrased numerous times. Reading the previous post, apparently you aren't unless perhaps you're an unusual, non-omni deity variant.

I'm an agnostic :p
I have plenty of theories about god and non-god.

I don't, I'm merely not accepting it without evidence. Do you accept all claims without evidence?

While it's possible god(s) exist, without any evidence, even after centuries of searching (by those wanting to find it,) I've no reason to accept it.

Do you object to it if presented as a fact? If so, why? Probably the same reasons I would object (and no, I could care less what anyone believes as long as they don't present those beliefs as knowledge.)

Well, I guess there's nothing to be had here as the first italics of the following statement will show.
In my opinion, there is sufficient validity to the possibility of a deity involved in the creation of our universe that I will not rule it out due to the insufficient evidence. This concept make enough sense to me, regardless of what evidence there is for it (although I doubt there can ever be sufficient evidence), that I consider it a possibility.

OK, unfortunately, the terms and definitions you used don't reflect the question you wanted to ask.

I'm sure not too many people will get messed up :p

In normal usage, wrong on both counts. Theists believe god(s) exist, atheists either believe god(s) don't exist (strong/hard atheism) or don't believe god(s) exist. The difference between knowledge and belief is very important, knowledge is falsifiable, beliefs are not.

I know exactly what you mean.

What I meant to convey to you is that the theists are so sure of their god(s)'s existence, and the atheists are so sure of the inexistence of any deity, that in their mind, they know it to be true. Even though objectively, know is the incorrect word, subjectively, they know that their version of the truth is the correct one.

Choose yours.

Theism: Belief in a god or gods
Spritualism: Religious belief without a god or gods (basically all religions other than god-based religions)
Agnosticism
Atheism: There is no god.

Question: am I correct in assuming the nature of said god(s) and the way you deal with them does not matter for this poll ?
Examples:
- someone who believes god(s) exist, but does not bother to worship them or does not assume these gods influence daily life (deist) should vote theist in your poll.
- someone who believes god(s) exist, but considers them to be evil and foul (maltheist) should also vote theist.

Remember, though, God could be omnipotent without omniscience. Just a thought.

You know, you might be right. I don't think so, but its a better theory and better-argued than many I've heard recently. I applaud you. Have a drink. I rather dislike the thoery as a whole, due to the immense faith it requires to believe in a creator in the first place, but it raises an interesting question. If this is indeed the case, than is the "Creator" a being created by another, more pwerful "creator?" And if so, how far back does this chain extend? Does it end with some omnipotent being, or simply extend forever? Is it, in fact, turtles all the way down? In any case, something to ponder. I am off to bed.

Indeed, there are many variables to account for when thinking about our creator(s) that there are so many possibilities! I merely stated one that I would find desirable.

Oh, and I'll take you up on your drink :D
G'night!

Question: am I correct in assuming the nature of said god(s) and the way you deal with them does not matter for this poll ?
Examples:
- someone who believes god(s) exist, but does not bother to worship them or does not assume these gods influence daily life (deist) should vote theist in your poll.
- someone who believes god(s) exist, but considers them to be evil and foul (maltheist) should also vote theist.

Yes, to all.

If you believe a god exists, but don't think that you need to worship him, then you still vote theist. And, yes, the morality of the god is irrelevant, it's still a god.

Basically the poll choices are:
Religion - god(s)
Religion - non-god
Non-Religion - Agnostic
Non-Religion - Atheist

:eek:

God's a lurker (in the great forum of life :p )

Huh. Never thought about it that way before.
Heres a few quotes from significantly smarter men than I on the topic of God:

"Not only is there no God, But try getting a plumber on weekends" - Woody Allen

"If only God would give me some clear sign! like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss Bank account" - Woody Allen

And now some serious ones:

"Dieu me pardonnera, c'est son metier" Translated, this means "God will forgive me, it is his proffession" dying words of Heinrich Heine.

"A god who allowed us to prove His existence would be an idol" - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"I have too much respect for the idea of a God to make it responsible for such an absurd world" Georges Duhamel

"God is absence. God is the solitude of man" Jean-Paul Sartre.




Thats my two cents. BTW i am an open-minded Aethiest, and i believe very strongly in this final quote from Martin Luther (yes that is supposed to be Martin Luther, not King or anything else). " Whatever Your heart clings to and relies upon, that is your God"

You have a strange definition of "possible"!

It could be true. Who am I to say it is not? If it were, it would make any argument against it nonsense.

That's why I prefer to relegate such possibilities to the realm of absurdity, because they are absurd, even if possible.

It could be true. Who am I to say it is not? If it were, it would make any argument against it nonsense.

That's why I prefer to relegate such possibilities to the realm of absurdity, because they are absurd, even if possible.
You are YOU to say it's not! Stand up, man, take some pride in your logic and intelligence.

If 'x = not x' were true, IT would be the nonsense, not the arguments against it.

:) There is no god, and even if there were, absent eternal divine punishment He would be irrelevant to my life.

But the "point" of God is that there is in fact eternal, divine punishment. I think you owe a pennance and about 9 Hail Mary's. :)

:)

But the "point" of God is that there is in fact eternal, divine punishment. I think you owe a pennance and about 9 Hail Mary's. :)
That's why I, and apparently Soheran, prefer to believe in god rather than God. :D

You are YOU to say it's not! Stand up, man, take some pride in your logic and intelligence.

What "logic and intelligence"? I'm just a member of homo sapiens sapiens (a misnomer if there ever was one) using a small portion of my brain to try to comprehend the workings of a universe far vaster and more mysterious than I can imagine. Of course I'm wrong about some things, and if I did not accept that I have the potential to be wrong about any given point, I would be recklessly and foolishly arrogant.

If 'x = not x' were true, IT would be the nonsense, not the arguments against it.

Yes, it would be nonsense. Everything else would be nonsense, too. It is absurd, because it is inconceivable. But potentially, it could be true anyway.

:)

But the "point" of God is that there is in fact eternal, divine punishment. I think you owe a pennance and about 9 Hail Mary's. :)

Yes, that is one reason I can't believe any more.

What kind of loving being would sentence heretics to eternal, divine punishment? I have no interest in worshipping a whiny toddler with an Omnipotence Machine.

What "logic and intelligence"? I'm just a member of homo sapiens sapiens (a misnomer if there ever was one) using a small portion of my brain to try to comprehend the workings of a universe far vaster and more mysterious than I can imagine. Of course I'm wrong about some things, and if I did not accept that I have the potential to be wrong about any given point, I would be recklessly and foolishly arrogant.
LOL! :fluffle:
Who are you to say you are wrong?

Yes, it would be nonsense. Everything else would be nonsense, too. It is absurd, because it is inconceivable. But potentially, it could be true anyway.
No, not even potentially. Truth does exist.

LOL! :fluffle:
Who are you to say you are wrong?

Someone perfectly aware of (some of) my own limitations. I don't show it very often, I'm very conceited usually, but it gives me a sort of intellectual humility sometimes.

No, not even potentially. Truth does exist.

If things make sense, then of course you are right, and according to my conception of reality you are right. But I cannot help but feel sometimes that I am begging the question by assuming that things make sense in the first place.

Someone perfectly aware of (some of) my own limitations. I don't show it very often, I'm very conceited usually, but it gives me a sort of intellectual humility sometimes.
Then acknowledge the limitations of possibility, because it relates directly to you. You are YOU to do it. :)

If possibility has no limits, there would be nothing that was impossible. And yet, both "possible" and "impossible" were conceived by feeble human minds trying to "comprehend the workings of a universe far vaster and more mysterious than I can imagine." What is possible lies within those bounds.

If things make sense, then of course you are right, and according to my conception of reality you are right. But I cannot help but feel sometimes that I am begging the question by assuming that things make sense in the first place.
Things do make sense. Really.

I believe in god, but my god is not omnipotent in the physical world, as I believe that he/she/it is benevolent. And if god has a gender, I think that it's more likely to be female than male.

Oh, and from what I can tell, my god isn't the mean nasty "God" that certain religious groups worship.

If possibility has no limits, there would be nothing that was impossible. And yet, both "possible" and "impossible" were conceived by feeble human minds trying to "comprehend the workings of a universe far vaster and more mysterious than I can imagine." What is possible lies within those bounds.

True. I suppose I may be fetishizing the concept of "possibility", by asserting that it has meaning beyond the common-sense concepts of truth that underly it.

But still, though, I'm only justifying myself in my own framework.

It just seems that the possibility of a creator's existence is too farfetched in Soheran's mind, whereas in fellow agnostics, it's a contemplateable possibility.

This thread has reminded me of an old joke:

Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac?
He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a dog

<I know, terrible>

100% pure unadulterated atheism! :Dhttp://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

I am a monothiest, meaning, I believe in one God, the Almighty Creator of the universe. I empathize with those of you who say you cannot understand how a God could be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. It is out of the realm of human comprehension, as is the infinity of outer space. However, I'm here to say I know for a fact there is one God who is Ruler of the Universe and all mankind, who sent His only Son to die for the sins of all mankind so we could live with Him upon death. The reason I am so sure is because He lives within my soul, and while I am still a vile sinner, my soul has be snatched from the grips of Satan and will dwell in Heaven for eternity with my LORD. The problem with people is when talking about God and Christianity, they always look at it "logically". However, human logic is a grain of sand stacked up against the knowledge and power of Almighty God.

The question was asked, "Why would God create us?" The answer is, according to the Bible, because before the Earth was created, the only beings in Heaven were the angels and the Godhead. Even God gets lonely! The angels worshipped Him because they were created for that purpose, but God wanted fellowship with those who love Him through choice. The Bible says, I think in the book of John, "We love Him because He first loved us." How would you enjoy relationship with someone who loved you robotically compared to one who loved you for who you are and because of your love for them?

People, just as my sig quotes, God loved this world so much He sent His Son, Jesus, our Jehovah God, to be born in human flesh of a virgin, to live a sinless life in a world so full of sin, then to die a sinless death, first beaten beyond recognition (he didn't even resemble a man after the flogging), ridiculed, spat upon, then nailed to a Roman cross to die. He did all this for YOU because "our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." You cannot achieve Heaven by your own way, you must accept Jesus' Gift of salvation. Your trip to Heaven is paid in full by Jesus' blood. He already holds the title to your soul, but if you pass up this Gift, Satan will claim you for his own and you will burn with him in Hell forever.

This is not a joke or fantasy, folks, but the real deal!! You say there is no Almighty God, or saving power through Jesus Christ, but if you're wrong, then what??

I know for a fact there is one God who is Ruler of the Universe and all mankind, who sent His only Son to die for the sins of all mankind so we could live with Him upon death.

No, I'm afraid that you fucking don't know for a fact anything about god. You believe, but you don't know. Why? Because if you "knew" then you would have no faith.

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

If you know something, then there can be no faith, because faith requires that you accept something without proof, which according to Christianity, you're supposed to do. This one of the things that annoys people about some Christians, is that they think that they can "know" something that you can't prove. The thing is, you can't. You can only have faith, which is what religion for the most part is. Yours, mine, some guy named Joe's. All depends on faith.

If you can "know for a fact" what you just said, then I "know for a fact" that god is a woman who has no power in the physical world but complete power over souls, that heaven is a world much like our own, but better, that there is no Hell, and that Jesus was not god's son, but her buddy.

Obviously I don't "know" all these things, there's no way of proving them. It's just what I believe. Just the same as what you stated is not what you "know" but what you believe.

I am a monothiest, meaning, I believe in one God, the Almighty Creator of the universe. I empathize with those of you who say you cannot understand how a God could be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. It is out of the realm of human comprehension, as is the infinity of outer space.

Ah, so us pathetic beings should just be content to kneel to our dear Shepherd, who naturally cannot be understood and cannot be explained. Logic? What worthless trash. Morality? Only God's matters. Accountability? That's only for us mortals.

However, I'm here to say I know for a fact there is one God who is Ruler of the Universe and all mankind, who sent His only Son to die for the sins of all mankind so we could live with Him upon death.

Why did He need His son to die at all? Couldn't He just have absolved us without the whole crucifixion thing?

Not much of a loving father.

The reason I am so sure is because He lives within my soul, and while I am still a vile sinner, my soul has be snatched from the grips of Satan and will dwell in Heaven for eternity with my LORD.

Unless God in fact belongs to another denomination, denies that you are Christian, and sends you to burn.

The problem with people is when talking about God and Christianity, they always look at it "logically". However, human logic is a grain of sand stacked up against the knowledge and power of Almighty God.

Which, since we cannot comprehend, we must accept on faith, just because He wants us to. Why? Why should I surrender my individual sovereignty? Why should I subject my mind to absolute faith in a being I cannot even understand? That would be the height of foolishness.

The question was asked, "Why would God create us?" The answer is, according to the Bible, because before the Earth was created, the only beings in Heaven were the angels and the Godhead. According to the Bible, God created humans because Even God gets lonely! The angels worshipped Him because they were created for that purpose, but God wanted fellowship with those who love Him through choice.

Actually, the Bible says absolutely nothing of the sort. God doesn't explain why He creates the world, He just does it, and says it is "good," whatever that is supposed to mean.

The Bible says, I think in the book of John, "We love Him because He first loved us." How would you enjoy relationship with someone who loved you robotically compared to one who loved you for who you are and because of your love for them?

I don't believe I should love anything I can't even begin to understand.

People, just as my sig quotes, God loved this world so much He sent His Son, Jesus, our Jehovah God, to be born in human flesh of a virgin, to live a sinless life in a world so full of sin, then to die a sinless death, first beaten beyond recognition (he didn't even resemble a man after the flogging), ridiculed, spat upon, then nailed to a Roman cross to die. He did all this for YOU because "our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." You cannot achieve Heaven by your own way, you must accept Jesus' Gift of salvation. Your trip to Heaven is paid in full by Jesus' blood. He already holds the title to your soul, but if you pass up this Gift, Satan will claim you for his own and you will burn with him in Hell forever.

That is to say, God loves us so much that unless we properly make ourselves servile to Him, an inexplicable, incomprehensible, and immaterial being with a good deal of competition even in that arena, He will sentence us to eternal torture. What kind of loving deity is that? Why should I worship any deity who thinks that everyone who doesn't subordinate themselves to him - a large majority of the world's population - deserves to suffer endless agony?

No, thank you. I don't want to worship anything so cruel, hateful, and barbaric.

This is not a joke or fantasy, folks, but the real deal!! You say there is no Almighty God, or saving power through Jesus Christ, but if you're wrong, then what??

The Myth of Sisyphus (http://24.62.177.166:8080//sisyphus.htm)

This is not a joke or fantasy, folks, but the real deal!! You say there is no Almighty God, or saving power through Jesus Christ, but if you're wrong, then what??

And what if YOU are wrong ? That you picked the wrong denomination out of the hundreds of flavours of Christianity ? Or that .. shock horror.. you picked the wrong religion and one of the thousands of others is actually correct ?

If you cannot give me a good reason why your particular religion is better than all those others, I do not see why I should believe you over someone else who tells me different things.

See, this is why I do not claim to know anything about the nature of spiritual beings, or the spiritual world or any of that stuff. I don't even really know if it actually exists. I strongly believe it does, but there is no way to find out for sure.

It's simply folly to claim to know things that can't be proven.

I wonder if god plays GTA with real humans?
I will carry this picture of God for the rest of my life. Thank you.

There is a god, and Im it!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/commandments.jpg

(Ok, so the timeline isn't Biblical. So What? :p )

I do believe in God. I don't think the universe is a cosmic accident. However, I'm not sure that any of the religions, including Christianity, got it right.

There is no god, and even if there were, absent eternal divine punishment He would be irrelevant to my life.

...then He is quite relevant.

hehe

Every culture has its gods, and all of them are obviously made up. You can study the evolution of any religion and it always comes down to people just making something up. There is never any evidence for the existence of any god.

You could say it is impossible to know that God does not exist, but it is just as possible as knowing anything exists. For example. There is a turnip on my desk. Between me and the screen. but it does not block my view because it is invisble. it does not prevent me typing because it has no physical form. no mass, no effect on light, it cannot be detected by any means and there is no evidence that it ever existed. It defies all the known laws of physics. It also doesnt actually exist, I just made it up. But it is as impossible to prove its non existence as it is to prove that God does not exist.

I know there is no God. and I know there is no turnip.

I'm an Agnostic, though i did believe in God without a shadow of doubt until a few years ago. Nothing in particular happened in those few years to make me question it, i just did. I believe in karma, fate, destiny, peace, freedom, faith, hope and love and i believe everything happens for a reason. I just don't know if that reason is some divine power.

...then He is quite relevant.

hehe

Perhaps, but I'll worry about that after I die. For now I'm not particularly interested in being bullied into worshipping any deity.

And what kind of reason is it to worship God because you're afraid of His punishment?

I am a monothiest, meaning, I believe in one God, the Almighty Creator of the universe. I empathize with those of you who say you cannot understand how a God could be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

If God is, quite leterally, EVERYWHERE, then we, humans, are God. Each one of us is God, because God is us. God is every atom of our being, every thought within our mind. Everything is God. All the animals, even the tiniest bacteria. And the Earth itself and the universe.

If thats true, anyway.

I propose an alternate theory: that I am God. I love joking aroud, and messing with my creation. However, I, being the all powerful being that I am, put myself into the body of a human child, without memory of My true nature, to experience what being a human was like. When this body dies, I will revert to my ethereal form, with all my memories intact. This will give me insight into the way my Making has evolved. Because I am not omniscient. Only Omnipotent.

Why did He need His son to die at all? Couldn't He just have absolved us without the whole crucifixion thing?

Not much of a loving father.


Because, as the Bible states (not to mention most people would agree), "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." The surest way to tell somebody you love them is to sacrifice your life for thiers, especially for a crime they commited.

The Alma Mater~
If I'm wrong, then I rot in the grave and know nothing but blackness for eternity. The worms eat me, the stones grind my bones to dust, and in 100 years my memory and body cease to exist.

If you're wrong, you burn for eternity in the Lake of Fire, which was, in fact, not created for you but for Satan and his demons in return for thier rebellion against Almighty God. However, God has no choice but put you in Heaven or Hell, and that destination is based off your choice. Choose God and heaven, or Satan and hell? The choice is yours!

Because, as the Bible states (not to mention most people would agree), "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." The surest way to tell somebody you love them is to sacrifice your life for thiers, especially for a crime they commited.

Yeah, but why sacrifice your life if you don't have to? God could have accomplished the same objectives without the martyrdom.

If you're wrong, you burn for eternity in the Lake of Fire, which was, in fact, not created for you but for Satan and his demons in return for thier rebellion against Almighty God. However, God has no choice but put you in Heaven or Hell,

Isn't He all-powerful?

and that destination is based off your choice. Choose God and heaven, or Satan and hell? The choice is yours!

I know absolutely nothing that in fact indicates that God, Satan, Heaven, or Hell exists at all, and according to you it is all "beyond my comprehension" anyway. Sorry, that isn't going to work.

I am a monothiest, meaning, I believe in one God, the Almighty Creator of the universe. I empathize with those of you who say you cannot understand how a God could be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. It is out of the realm of human comprehension, as is the infinity of outer space.

I agree with you there. We cannot comprehend such a god. What I'm curious is why do some worship a god that they cannot even comprehend? It is akin to believing a theory that you do not understand.

However, I'm here to say I know for a fact there is one God who is Ruler of the Universe and all mankind,

Side-comment: Now do you understand why I made the comment "Theists know there is a God"? Quite clearly, this person knows for a fact.

Anyways, I accept that you know it for a fact. For you, you cannot conceive it to be anything else, and consequentially it is fact. However, others (like me) need much more evidence to believe something as a fact.

who sent His only Son to die for the sins of all mankind so we could live with Him upon death.

Ah, how do you know it is his son? You know that idolatry and worshipping false gods is offensive to God. How can you be so sure that the Bible speaks the truth? Aren't you taking a chance there?

You place your faith in a many-times-revised 2000 year-old book and worship a person who is claimed to be God in that book, at the risk of offending the true God? What if the book is not absolute fact? What if Jesus isn't God, and you're offending God by believing Jesus is God? Are you prepared to take that risk?

I sure am not.

The reason I am so sure is because He lives within my soul,

I can understand that, and see how it would lead you to believe in God as a fact.

and while I am still a vile sinner, my soul has be snatched from the grips of Satan and will dwell in Heaven for eternity with my LORD.

Here you're just preaching.

The problem with people is when talking about God and Christianity, they always look at it "logically".

Do you suggest a better way to look at it? Should we all abolish our logic and worship every god that people can conceive of? Without logic, it is foolish to believe something.

However, human logic is a grain of sand stacked up against the knowledge and power of Almighty God.

I still need something to tell me that the Christian God is the real god. I do not have sufficient proof that the bible is fact. If I were to do as you advise me and renounce my logic, I'd be obligated to believe every other god as well.

The question was asked, "Why would God create us?" The answer is, according to the Bible, because before the Earth was created, the only beings in Heaven were the angels and the Godhead. Even God gets lonely!

You implied in previous statements that God is omnipotent, and seeing as you believe in the Christian God, my assumption is a safe one.

If God is omnipotent, can't he will his loneliness away? He has the ability to do anything he wants, so I should think that he would be able to make himself no longer be lonely.

The angels worshipped Him because they were created for that purpose, but God wanted fellowship with those who love Him through choice. The Bible says, I think in the book of John, "We love Him because He first loved us."

The problem is that we don't have much of a choice. It is a choice between "worship me and you will be rewarded eternally" and "do not worship me and you will be punished eternally". I do not see how it is such a big improvement from simply programming the beings to worship him. In fact, it is more evil to do it this way, because now beings have the ability to fail and suffer eternal torment.

How would you enjoy relationship with someone who loved you robotically compared to one who loved you for who you are and because of your love for them?

I believe a more accurate version of this question (for this case) would be:

How would you enjoy relationship with someone who loved you robotically compared to one who loved you because if they did not, they would suffer eternal torment?

Both would be equal to me, because I would be forcing love upon both of them.

People, just as my sig quotes, God loved this world so much He sent His Son, Jesus, our Jehovah God, to be born in human flesh of a virgin, to live a sinless life in a world so full of sin, then to die a sinless death, first beaten beyond recognition (he didn't even resemble a man after the flogging), ridiculed, spat upon, then nailed to a Roman cross to die. He did all this for YOU because "our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." You cannot achieve Heaven by your own way, you must accept Jesus' Gift of salvation. Your trip to Heaven is paid in full by Jesus' blood.

Now you're preaching again. You're preaching from your 2000-year-old book that you take as fact and as the word of God. Others, unfortunately, need more convincing to be sure the book is true, and cannot risk offending god by believing in a version of him without sufficient proof.

He already holds the title to your soul, but if you pass up this Gift, Satan will claim you for his own and you will burn with him in Hell forever.

It's interesting how your God would leave us in the hands of Satan to experience eternal torment because we do not believe a questionable book written 2000 years ago and re-written many times up to now.

This is not a joke or fantasy, folks, but the real deal!! You say there is no Almighty God, or saving power through Jesus Christ, but if you're wrong, then what??

The question applies to you as well. What if you're wrong? What if Jesus was a simple man, immortalized and deified through a book of fiction? What if you're worshipping something that is not God, wouldn't your interpretation of what God is be very angry at you?

The Alma Mater~
If I'm wrong, then I rot in the grave and know nothing but blackness for eternity. The worms eat me, the stones grind my bones to dust, and in 100 years my memory and body cease to exist.

If you're wrong, you burn for eternity in the Lake of Fire, which was, in fact, not created for you but for Satan and his demons in return for thier rebellion against Almighty God. However, God has no choice but put you in Heaven or Hell, and that destination is based off your choice. Choose God and heaven, or Satan and hell? The choice is yours!

Eeerrrm.. I asked what would happen to you if you had picked the wrong God. Not what would happen if God did not exist.
One assumes this means you will probably also end up in Hell, tortured by demons. And if God is truly jealous He will probably punish you harder than me - since you worshipped a false God...

Now - go out there and count the number of flavours of Christianity. Many of them of course claiming to be the only true form and only way to heaven. Then go count the number of non-Christian religions. Do not forget the tribal ones.

No tell me - why is yours right, and are those thousands - nay : millions - of others wrong ?