NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I believe in god. I believe god to be supernatural. I believe I said that earlier. Did I somehow stray from that position?

It's not a logjam unless you are looking for proof of god. I wouldn't presume to offer that.

No, and if we were only talking about you, that would be fine, and we probably would have agreed about 10 pages ago that you believe in god, so we are done. As to you offering proof, YOU started this tack with...

I think any self-respecting theist would tell you, "I am evidence that god exists."

The atheist is the one who doesn't see the evidence.

which seemed to indicate you HAD some evidence, the nature of which we have been discussing, I thought.

I certainly do not want this to be an attack on you, personally, and please forgive me if it seems such, but when you placed yourself as the "theist" in the argument, I used "you" instead of "theist" in places where, perhaps, I should not have done.

Well, not really. agnostism is basically deciding you don't know, and it doesn't matter. If you think it does matter, then you probably fall into one or the other camps.

.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth or falsity of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God or gods—is unknown, unknowable, or incoherent.

Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist).

Is Atheism itself extremist? I would humbly say no, it is not.

This varies though, because we all have personal definitions of Extremist.

My definition is, am I imposing something on another? Am I bombing or burning down churches solely because I disagree?

Then, in my opinion and definition, I would be an extremist.

However, if I choose, and have chosen, to not believe that theres a possibility any supreme being exists, am I extremist? I don't believe so.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/Smilies/bump.gif

No, and if we were only talking about you, that would be fine, and we probably would have agreed about 10 pages ago that you believe in god, so we are done. As to you offering proof, YOU started this tack with...

which seemed to indicate you HAD some evidence, the nature of which we have been discussing, I thought.

I certainly do not want this to be an attack on you, personally, and please forgive me if it seems such, but when you placed yourself as the "theist" in the argument, I used "you" instead of "theist" in places where, perhaps, I should not have done.
I have evidence. I do not have proof. They are not the same thing, not even close. I don't believe it is possible to prove god to others.

I understand, and this conversation was necessarily steered toward me because my argument took place from the subjective. I don't believe it is possible to know god from any other perspective.

Originally Posted by Willamena
The atheist is the one who doesn't see the evidence.
The atheist is the one who attempts to find god objectively.

Various religions + deists + agnostics: some 95% of the global population.

Atheist: the single dissenting juryman who swears he's never seen 11 such obstinate fellows. :P

In order to be altheist, you need to believe for certain that there is no God. If there is a wavering, then you're merely agnostic.

EDIT: Yes, I use the narrow definition.



no, you use the wrong definition

The atheist is the one who attempts to find god objectively.
That would make me a Theist Atheist.

Perhaps that particular definition needs reworking?

It would appear we're now stuck in the definition of 'atheist'...

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

Hehh Now I don't mind Atheists but they will insist in only beliving in what can be proved(even though we all belive in things that cannot be proven?)my only gripe is when they ask, no no tell me that I should not belive in God and then get all supprised when I get upset about them calling to abolish religion.

When one group even thinks about getting rid of another group, let alone actively calling for it, then yes we can call these Atheists fundamentalist.

It would appear we're now stuck in the definition of 'atheist'...

Well you'll never to get atheists to agree on one. You can't get us to agree on pratically anything. Bloody nitpicky skeptics.

It would appear we're now stuck in the definition of 'atheist'...
I think it's reasonable to say that Atheist is any position that is contrary to Theist; that is, you do not believe that Gods exist or use Gods in any form of metaphor. However, as a consequence of that, we need to come to a definition of what we mean by Theos or God before any full explanation of Atheism can be reached.

Well you'll never to get atheists to agree on one. You can't get us to agree on pratically anything. Bloody nitpicky skeptics.

I know. It is one of those factors that render them so very ineffective.
That, and their tendencies to invoke hell and damnation on agnostics and deists...

Define "extremists". I'd say an extremist is taking the word of their religion at face value, an unyielding commitment to all doctrine and dogma of a religion. Hence, an EXTREME devotion and faith in a system.

Seeing as how atheists do not have doctrine or theological practices to be screaming from the highest peaks, I'm going with no. The closest "yes" I could give you is someone hell bent on converting others, but then again, I don't see it as an extreme atheist because I don't feel priests and rabbis are extremest when it is there very job to convert the masses.

Of course they are extremists, who else would believe that all people evolved from 'monkeys and rocks'.


There's more here

http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/04/important-tool-in-battle-against.html

Of course they are extremists, who else would believe that all people evolved from 'monkeys and rocks'.
You say rocks like we're supposed to find it ridiculous. Humans are just rocks that have been arranged in special ways.

You say rocks like we're supposed to find it ridiculous. Humans are just rocks that have been arranged in special ways.

Read the website - I can't work out if it's a piss-take or not.

Originally Posted by Willamena
The atheist is the one who attempts to find god objectively.
That would make me a Theist Atheist.

Perhaps that particular definition needs reworking?
Perhaps; there is always room for improvement. Depends, though... what are you *really* looking for? Is it to find god infront of your nose? If you are a theist, you already have god, so what are you really looking for? Most atheists are such, who insist others put a god infront of their nose (so they can rally against it) because they don't "get" god themselves. It's rare to find a theist who requires this of his religion.

How can you define a whole group of people as extremists. If all atheists were extremeists then buses and other realated material would be blowing up everywhere. You are being overly general you need to realize that it depends on the person not their beliefs :headbang:

:( :mp5:

If I deny the existence of Santa Claus I am an extremist.

Of course they are extremists, who else would believe that all people evolved from 'monkeys and rocks'.


There's more here

http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/04/important-tool-in-battle-against.html

Wow can u say biased. You are an extremist yourself if you think that. Oh and by the wat if we didnt come from monkeys i would like you to xplain the fact of how 98% of our dna is identical to that of monkeys. Weird :headbang:

:( :sniper:

Of course they are extremists, who else would believe that all people evolved from 'monkeys and rocks'.


There's more here

http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/04/important-tool-in-battle-against.html


This website should be up for some comedy award - it is fantastically funny.

"Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are treated very well. They enjoy fines meals, have their personal belongings with them and have plenty of fresh air and leisure time. If you ask me we treat them much too good! I for one would not spend a lot money for somebody who tried to kill me before! If I think about it, they must have the time of their life and must think we are pretty stupid. The problem is that we are much too good hearted."

Shelley must be one of the ones who evolved from a rock

Perhaps; there is always room for improvement. Depends, though... what are you *really* looking for? Is it to find god infront of your nose? If you are a theist, you already have god, so what are you really looking for? Most atheists are such, who insist others put a god infront of their nose (so they can rally against it) because they don't "get" god themselves. It's rare to find a theist who requires this of his religion.
One does not need to have religion to be Theist, as I'm sure you know. To me, the realm of the spiritual is an objective reality independent of organised belief structures. It is not something revealed through faith but through mixed perspectives from all aspects of human existence.

I "have" God in this sense; I have ideas and ways of thinking that render it almost a trivial tautology. But if there is an objective existence of God beyond my own understanding of it, the nature of this "posession" will change. Thus I search, ever mindful of the need to reform my opinion and stances based on both the subjective and objective reality that I live in.

Wow can u say biased. You are an extremist yourself if you think that. Oh and by the wat if we didnt come from monkeys i would like you to xplain the fact of how 98% of our dna is identical to that of monkeys. Weird :headbang:

:( :sniper:

I know it's difficult to put sarcasm across online, but FFS

How can you define a whole group of people as extremists. If all atheists were extremeists then buses and other realated material would be blowing up everywhere. You are being overly general you need to realize that it depends on the person not their beliefs :headbang:

:( :mp5:


Ahahahhhahah now try telling that to an Atheist of belivers

Wow can u say biased. You are an extremist yourself if you think that. Oh and by the wat if we didnt come from monkeys i would like you to xplain the fact of how 98% of our dna is identical to that of monkeys. Weird :headbang:

:( :sniper:
Ha, they probably don't believe in DNA either. Just like they don't believe evolution.

I think it's reasonable to say that Atheist is any position that is contrary to Theist; that is, you do not believe that Gods exist or use Gods in any form of metaphor. However, as a consequence of that, we need to come to a definition of what we mean by Theos or God before any full explanation of Atheism can be reached.
Until "God" is defined, it's pretty silly to be trying to define "debelief in God." I mean, how do we know what does and does not constitute an extreme stance on disbelief of Quizblorg, if nobody really knows what Quizblorg is? Maybe we ALL disbelieve Quizblorg to one extent or another.

The religious would do well to remember that they are ALL atheist to a certain degree. 99% of religious individuals disbelieve in somebody else's God, yet for some reason they view their own disbelief in God as different from an atheist's disbelief in Gods. At least atheists uniformly reject all human concepts of Gods; religious individuals reject all concepts of God except for the one that they like best.

EDIT: Also, many atheist individuals don't even reject Gods as strongly as religious individuals reject Gods. Many atheists are agnostic atheists, who say, "Until I have more information, it would be irresponsible of me to leap to any conclusions about the existence or properties of any God or gods that may or may not exist." Because religious individuals typically have a vision of what God is and isn't like, the religious individuals are ruling out alternative Gods much more firmly than atheists.

For instance, take Apollo. As an agnostic atheist, I feel that it would not be appropriate for me to worship God in the form of Apollo, because I don't feel that I have any information that would lead me to conclude that God exists in the form of Apollo. However, I acknowledge the possibility that God does, indeed, exist in the form of Apollo, and I am simply unaware of this. Until I have more information, I suspend my judgment. A Christian, on the other hand, very clearly and firmly believes that Apollo is NOT GOD. The Christian's disbelief in Apollo is significantly more "extreme" than my own.

Until "God" is defined, it's pretty silly to be trying to define "debelief in God." I mean, how do we know what does and does not constitute an extreme stance on disbelief of Quizblorg, if nobody really knows what Quizblorg is? Maybe we ALL disbelieve Quizblorg to one extent or another.

The religious would do well to remember that they are ALL atheist to a certain degree. 99% of religious individuals disbelieve in somebody else's God, yet for some reason they view their own disbelief in God as different from an atheist's disbelief in Gods. At least atheists uniformly reject all human concepts of Gods; religious individuals reject all concepts of God except for the one that they like best.
well said

Of course they are extremists, who else would believe that all people evolved from 'monkeys and rocks'.
Wow, I wish!

I'm picturing a race of giant stone gorilla people...neat-o!!

Wow, I wish!

I'm picturing a race of giant stone gorilla people...neat-o!!

That reminds of Galaxy Quest. The greatest sci-fi comedy in the history of the Galaxy.

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

If you don't like them they can be. Everyone is an extremist religion or faith is the 'fundamental' and extreme. All physical things apply force with sometihng, it is either more or less at a certain point then others. Ultimately our Faiths merge in what may seem a choice and balance of our divinity.


"Extremism is a term used to describe either ideas or actions thought by critics to be unwarranted or at least beyond what is acceptable in a 'civilised' society." ~ wikipedia

If you don't like them they can be. Everyone is an extremist religion or faith is the 'fundamental' and extreme. All physical things apply force with sometihng, it is either more or less at a certain point then others. Ultimately our Faiths merge in what may seem a choice and balance of our divinity.

This is a very strange paragraph. Was it Babelfished? :confused:

One does not need to have religion to be Theist, as I'm sure you know.
One does not have to have a religious organization to be theist; one does, however, have religion if one is theist.

To me, the realm of the spiritual is an objective reality independent of organised belief structures. It is not something revealed through faith but through mixed perspectives from all aspects of human existence.

I "have" God in this sense; I have ideas and ways of thinking that render it almost a trivial tautology. But if there is an objective existence of God beyond my own understanding of it, the nature of this "posession" will change. Thus I search, ever mindful of the need to reform my opinion and stances based on both the subjective and objective reality that I live in.
What do you mean by revealed through mixed perspectives?

The very claim that your evidence is not of an objective God but rather your understanding of it would seem to support what I was saying, that you look for god inwardly. The fact that it might be changed in the future by encountering a "real" God is not significant --you have religion now.

That would make me a Theist Atheist.

Perhaps that particular definition needs reworking?

You have some sort of objective evidence of God? Do tell! You would think that something like that would be all over the news!


For instance, take Apollo. As an agnostic atheist, I feel that it would not be appropriate for me to worship God in the form of Apollo, because I don't feel that I have any information that would lead me to conclude that God exists in the form of Apollo. However, I acknowledge the possibility that God does, indeed, exist in the form of Apollo, and I am simply unaware of this. Until I have more information, I suspend my judgment. A Christian, on the other hand, very clearly and firmly believes that Apollo is NOT GOD. The Christian's disbelief in Apollo is significantly more "extreme" than my own.

Once again, not true. I don't think that any gods are not God, unless the person positing them admits that they were completely made up (ie. FSM, IPU). God is God, and people perceive God in different ways, thus coming to different personifications.

Good question. I suppose they kind of are... in a way at least. I suppose that a non-extreme atheist is really just agnostic.

To translate my 'languish'

People slap lables on people they don't like for political reasons.
Your kantivistan line wether intentional or not is in a way in the slightest offensive.
We are our divinity our faith. There is nothing more fundamental then that, nothing more unexplainable except in agreement and communication then that.

For the individual we are all one, we are our experience, we are society.

As two individuals we are individuals that have unique experiences and are guided by an ethical g-d or paradox or diety that allows communication between us, that is the god of our societies, and the god of our society in our gods purpose.

No it wasn't bablefished.

Once again, not true. I don't think that any gods are not God, unless the person positing them admits that they were completely made up (ie. FSM, IPU). God is God, and people perceive God in different ways, thus coming to different personifications.
*sign* Now it becomes about semantics.

You believe in God, yes? To believe in God, you must have some working definition of God, yes? Since you have clearly got some idea of what God is NOT (i.e., the FSM or IPU), then you must have a definition of what God IS. Thus, you have boundaries to your concept of God. Things which fall outside that definition cannot be "God" to you. Therefore, you disbelieve in those "Gods." That's what I am getting at.

Or, put it another way: if you believed that Apollo is the most accurate vision of God, then you would be worshipping Apollo. You do not worship Apollo (as near as I can tell), and therefore you have decided that the Apollo version of God is not as accurate as whatever concept of God you happen to hold.

(Though, I suppose, it is entirely possible that you haven't the faintest idea what God is like, and you've simply decided to follow whichever religion makes you feel the nicest. But, in that case, your God-belief has nothing to do with actual belief in God...instead, it would be about your worship of ideas that you've decided to NAME God, regardless of how they might square with the reality of God.)

I, on the other hand, feel that your version of God is no more or less potentially accurate than Apollo, Jupiter, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because the FSM was originally proposed as a joke does not mean it is any less likely to be the correct image of God. I believe any and all depiction or description of God is equally likely to be inaccurate. :)

This is a very strange paragraph. Was it Babelfished? :confused:

p.s. here is a fun little telephone game trick... with bablefish.. translate what you say to another language then translate it back

Here is angloitalic

----------------------
"If appreciate them cannot be. All is an extremist religion or the faith is ' the foundation ' and end. All the physical things apply the force with sometihng, are more or less to sure point then others. Finally our fusion of faith in that what can seem one chosen and an equilibrium of ours divinity.

----------------------------




ORIGINAL TEXT:
If you don't like them they can be. Everyone is an extremist religion or faith is the 'fundamental' and extreme. All physical things apply force with sometihng, it is either more or less at a certain point then others. Ultimately our Faiths merge in what may seem a choice and balance of our divinity.

--------------------

I need to remember this trick for essay writting... just bablefish an essay then tidy up the language.. yesssss.

OK I broke down the word:
Theism is the belief in a god or gods. With the prefix, atheism means a lack in belief in god or gods, that doesn't mean active opposition to religion (as has been suggested). For example, someone with no concept of god would be an atheist without even being capable of opposing religion. You can't call everyone who doesn't believe in god an extremist.
To clarify the use of the prefix; saying that someone is amoral means that they lack morals, rather than an immoral person who acts in a way that he/she knows is wrong.

To clarify the use of the prefix; saying that someone is amoral means that they lack morals, rather than an immoral person who acts in a way that he/she knows is wrong.
A good point. To be without religion is not the same as to be opposed to religion. I don't collect stamps, but that doesn't mean I oppose the collecting of stamps.

A good point. To be without religion is not the same as to be opposed to religion. I don't collect stamps, but that doesn't mean I oppose the collecting of stamps.


You do you bloody do, I remeber when you said...... No noo sorry that wasn't you was it!?!?:rolleyes:

You can't call everyone who doesn't believe in god an extremist.

Sure I can. Everything is extreme, if it wasn't then I wouldn't notice it.
Atheisim is either saying 'god doesn't exist or I don't beleive in god'

This is perplexed by the varying identity of what a god or gos is/are

It is like saying perfection does not exist ~or pessimism
You cannot no everything so ~non accountability
You cannot create anything you would like there are limitations ~submisiveness and self limittion
There is no 'head' of reality ~incapacity to self recognition
We do not praise any object ~oddly lack of showing appreciation, and nonnarcisism, non requirement for tradition or ceremony, ritual
Being doesn't exist ~existentialism
there is no invisible uniting cause ~anti judean
the supernatural does not exist ~there is no invisible 'forces' at work

etc...

atheism is worship of the god non acceptance and ignorance

You believe in God, yes? To believe in God, you must have some working definition of God, yes? Since you have clearly got some idea of what God is NOT (i.e., the FSM or IPU), then you must have a definition of what God IS. Thus, you have boundaries to your concept of God. Things which fall outside that definition cannot be "God" to you. Therefore, you disbelieve in those "Gods." That's what I am getting at.

This only works if there is no god at all.

If God exists, then God is defined by God's own existence. Thus, if I think someone is *wrong* about God, I am not discounting the existence of their God, just something they think about that God. Just as, if I thought something wrong about you - if I thought you were male, for instance - that wouldn't change the fact that you exist, and I was still replying to you.

I, on the other hand, feel that your version of God is no more or less potentially accurate than Apollo, Jupiter, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And you may be right. This is exactly why religion is a personal thing. I believe I have figured out certain things about God that would discount each of those. I certainly could be wrong, and will change my views if I have a reason to. You, on the other hand, have come to different conclusions based upon your own perceptions.

Just because the FSM was originally proposed as a joke does not mean it is any less likely to be the correct image of God. I believe any and all depiction or description of God is equally likely to be inaccurate. :)

No, but it does mean that thos who proposed it were not proposing it because they had some experience of God, but because they wanted to make a joke. Thus, it isn't, as I said before, them experiencing God through their own perceptions and coming to a different conclusion than my own.

Sure I can. Everything is extreme, if it wasn't the I wouldn't notice it.
On the contrary, if everything was extreme you wouldn't notice it, because it would not stand out.

atheism is worship of the god non acceptance and ignorance
Then what is worship?

Athiests, like those who don't believe in unicorns, don't believe because of lack of evidence. The earth isn't flat, unicorns don't bounce around, the laws of physics and thermodynamics don't seem the change on a regular basis, and god doesn't return my calls. It isn't unreasonable to not believe in something that cannot be observed, in the same way, if there was some proof to come along, athiests, by and large, aren't the sort to deny things they see with their own eyes, LSD excepted.

Likewise, fewer athiests are likely to say, if everyone suddenly had "made by god" tattooed on them and god is real started bleeding down all windows, that they would still deny his existance. As the mysteries of the universe are slowly solved, and there are fewer and fewer unknowns to hide in, spirtual answers in a rational world seem to make less and less sense. In that sense, athiests can't really be called extremists, since it requires no effort to believe there are no gods out there. It would, for lack of anyone telling you otherwise, the position that would be easiest to adopt. If no one ever told you "God is watching over you Billy." Would you still think there might be? As a rationalist, athiesm is a very easy position to end up in.

It's difficult, as a human, to be 100% sure of anything. Everything we experience is just what our brains tell us we're experiencing anyway, but if you're 99.5% sure there isn't a god, you're an athiest. If you take a position on the matter as to if there is a god or not, you are a theist or an athiest. Only if you believe that there may or may not be a god and it isn't humanly possible to know the answer, are you agnostic.


I'd say that I'm athiestic, but I don't really think about it much. :) I could be agnostic, because I believe that if there was such a being, although I don't think there is, we wouldn't be able to comprehend it, as it would be so different from us.

God certinally does provide a nifty answer to, "Mmkay, so, suppose the big bang did occur, I'm not debating you on that. But where did all that matter in that tiiiny bit come from?" Okay, you can say, God made that tiny ball of matter, and then everything just happened. But then you're left with another puzzling question. Where did God come from? I mean, you can't just have nothing, and then something. Things don't work that way. That'd mean there's all this empty nothing, from that nothing, there's God. What does it look like? Is it a physical being, or more of a presence? Is it more like a giant thought process that can do whatever it wants? But since there's nothing there besides that God, not air, not space, but an absence of anything, how does it survive? It's just there, not doing much. If it did make the matter, where did it get the matter from?
"Well, it's God, it can make the matter."
Well, jolly good then, but it brings us back to the question: What made the God?
Some say that ooh, maybe it's a perception thing, like something with two dimensions can't comprehend something with three dimensions, just like we can't really comprehend a two-dimensional being. Which is hard. But things just go up and down, right? Up and down. It's all on a plane, but the two-d beings don't SEE the plane, what's a plane? It's the surface they're on. What's a surface? They can't understand. Hah, we think, resting on our three-d laurels, what poor, limited creatures. They don't get the fullness of our 3-dness!
But, one says, there may be four dimensions.
What? Who's ever heard a thing like that?
Well, to the 2-ds, there's up and down, like a line. Forever. And we've added depth, so there are really two planes we're traveling on, up and down and up and away.
Right. But that's all there is. I mean, what's left, diagonals?
Well, it's not like we'd be able to comprehend it. Can the two-d thing comprehend the 3-d thing? No.
But I just got off where I wanted to go.
Anywhoo, I think it is partially a perception thing, I don't think there is a God, but if there were, we wouldn't be able to percieve it, just as we can't percieve the lack of anything, or the explosion of nothing into something. Can you picture that? All that balled up matter in empty space--which isn't space, as there isn't anything there--exploding, filling up the emptiness--which isn't really empty, it's just not there, period.
Can you? Can you picture it?
Neither can I. And that'd rather what a God would be like if he made that.

So, to summarize that behemoth: There is no God. But if there was one, we wouldn't be able to percieve it.

On the contrary, if everything was extreme you wouldn't notice it, because it would not stand out.

Well, it wouldn't be extreme then, would it, if everything were extreme, extreme would become the norm, so you'd notice things that weren't the (normal) extreme. Rather like a red dot on a white page, you notice it because it's so bright compared to everything else, and because it's the only red there is. Now, reverse it. You'd notice the white dot on the red paper because it was the only non-bright thing.

Well, it wouldn't be extreme then, would it, if everything were extreme, extreme would become the norm, so you'd notice things that weren't the (normal) extreme. Rather like a red dot on a white page, you notice it because it's so bright compared to everything else, and because it's the only red there is. Now, reverse it. You'd notice the white dot on the red paper because it was the only non-bright thing.
Just so.

So, to summarize that behemoth: There is no God. But if there was one, we wouldn't be able to percieve it.

Ever read Flatland - it sounds like that's kind of where you're coming from?

Those in 2-D *could* perceive 3-D things, albeit through the limitations of 2-D.

Those in 1-D *could* perceive 2-D things, albeit through the limitations of 1-D.

If God exists, and chooses to be revealed to us, then we can perceive God. Those perceptions, however, are limited, because we are limited in ways that God is not. Hence, all the confusion over what God is, and is not...

Ever read Flatland - it sounds like that's kind of where you're coming from?

Those in 2-D *could* perceive 3-D things, albeit through the limitations of 2-D.

Those in 1-D *could* perceive 2-D things, albeit through the limitations of 1-D.

If God exists, and chooses to be revealed to us, then we can perceive God. Those perceptions, however, are limited, because we are limited in ways that God is not. Hence, all the confusion over what God is, and is not...
Hmm...What would you say the fourth dimension would be? And if you say time, I shall slap you. Well, probably not. But any shrubbery you may own would be trampled on.

And--for the sake of this arguement, I shall argue like I believe God may exist, although I don't--if God did choose to reveal itself, we would be able to understand that bit, sure, but we wouldn't be able to understand its origions, how the universe came to be, how it works, how it sees things nonlinearly (I would assume it does, as if it is omnicient), ect. However, I also point out that both of our arguements may be basically flawed due to the problems with perception. Hence all the confusion over if God exists, and how the universe came into existance--or at least, for me.

Hmm...What would you say the fourth dimension would be? And if you say time, I shall slap you. Well, probably not. But any shrubbery you may own would be trampled on.

And--for the sake of this arguement, I shall argue like I believe God may exist, although I don't--if God did choose to reveal itself, we would be able to understand that bit, sure, but we wouldn't be able to understand its origions, how the universe came to be, how it works, how it sees things nonlinearly (I would assume it does, as if it is omnicient), ect. However, I also point out that both of our arguements may be basically flawed due to the problems with perception. Hence all the confusion over if God exists, and how the universe came into existance--or at least, for me.
Perception is only a problem if you insist that god be understood objectively. Our perception is not flawed except in comparison with something it is not, namely observation of an objectively experienced reality.

But, one says, there may be four dimensions.
What? Who's ever heard a thing like that?

Well, there is, Time. And if fits. We can only percive 3 dimensions, we don't really percove time, just continuous 3 dimensioal cross sections, like in Flatland, all he saw of the sphere was a series of circles.

On the contrary, if everything was extreme you wouldn't notice it, because it would not stand out.

I don't quite follow your logic on that one. I see things of interst as things at the 'forefront' of my conciousness, things that are mudane and accepted, flow in the subconcious unnoticed unless one is drinking from the water of extremity by neglect of value of those things mundane. The wonder that exists in our focus is driven by our inate desire and longing for 'wholeness'. EIther this wholeness is obscured in fantasy of potential future weighted by the beleif in the' mundane or non extremity those things that are 'accepted' and expected. Those expectations of our subconcous fuel our desire in our encased extremity to choose of chain of extremity based upon our souls purpose, while something may be 'more' extreme, we focus on the most extreme thing which is in communication with our falicy or fullfillment of soul in the balance between our fantasy or falacy 'lie' of the future expectation based upon understanding of past mundane or our choices of soulful guidance of the previous extremes, to the 'truth' of the actual experience. G-d itself is the extreme, the truth of all, that which is always true, the almighty and most pinicile the holy spirit. It is very involved to explain reality in full. To say the least imo. I beleive in freedom via oneness with the most holy, it is what it is.


Then what is worship?

Worship is expression of love for an identity, it is fostering of identity, wether that be an artifact, an ancestory, a notion. Worship in many ways is our souls fullfillment it is the pursuit of our will to perform worship in our everyday actions in mind of spirit.

So, to summarize that behemoth: There is no God. But if there was one, we wouldn't be able to percieve it.
That's the other reason I am agnostic...

The first reason is because I don't believe it is possible for me to know if God does or does not exist. But this second reason is that even if it were possible for me to know whether or not God exists, I still find it unlikely that I would be able to understand the properties of God well enough to compartmentalize God into some neat package of religious worship. It is likely I would not even be able to understand God well enough to know whether or not it wishes to be worshipped, let alone whether or not it is worthy of my worship. That's why I find religions to be generally arrogant...they presume to know not only that God does exist, but that God has a certain set of strangely anthropomorphic desires that can be easily understood by humans.