do you believe in god? and how much?

[Mirra]

I've chosen the undecided option. I've been at this point for a couple years now. I've tried to make up my mind one way or the other but recently have come to the decision that it's not really important enough to me to seek out a definitive answer. I'm afraid it will take something rather profound to make up my mind completely due to how I got to where I am.

I grew up Lutheran (ELCA, not Missouri Senate) and was perfectly happy with it. I even went to a Lutheran summer camp for 6 summers. My mother was not happy with the Lutheran church and started trying other denominations. None of them were appealing to her so she stopped looking. Not long after, she met a woman who introduced her to the Baha'i Faith and she eventually joined. I followed along because while it seemed a bit odd to me, I also appreciated a few of their beliefs over those I'd grown up with especially when it comes to science. I've become more disillusioned by organized religion including the Baha'i Faith which is why I rarely claim it despite it being the closest thing to a religion I could support. That is the crux of the problem. I've had atheists try to convince me one way or another but my background as a Baha'i means I'm impervious to many of their science based arguments. Baha'is do not feel that science and religion are contradictions. They simply believe that science discovers the hows of God's creation. This makes it tough for me to say without hesitation that "I don't believe" and yet I feel repulsed by most religions. For me, most religious people are the biggest turn off for their religions.

As for the people, I've grown up in South Carolina. The population across the state seems overwhelmingly Southern Baptist. When I listen to them talk, I start to feel like the angry atheist people have spoken about despite being closer to being agnostic or even a disenfranchised theist. It was also those who have felt the need to tell me I was wrong once they found out I was no longer a Christian. I've mentioned how the evangelistic aspects of most Christian denominations is such a turn off to me who, when I believed fully, preferred a personal relationship with God rather than pushing my beliefs on others. I received a response basically saying any true Christian would actively spread their beliefs out of love. I, on the other hand, feel any true Christian will be such a fine example of goodness that they will attract people to seek them out rather than having to proselytize.

I also had an atheist (formerly a member of this forum) try to push me over the edge to atheism. I had more respect for his arguments but he was just as bad as the religious folks I've run into at not taking a hint. (AKA shut up and move along.)

I guess overall I am not completely sure what the point is of religion. If there is a God or gods, why do they need to be worshiped? And yet at the same time, there very well could be some deity and so to say straight up that I do not believe when its all said and done doesn't work for me either. It's all quite confusing for me.

Now... if some of you are itching to argue any points from this post, please restrain yourselves. I haven't been in the mood to take arguments from either side of my undecided state as anything but an annoyance for the last few months. I've resigned myself to my current position with no desire to change it until several things I personally think are more important get settled in my life.

 

[Alana Cruise]

I am Christian.
I am typically ridiculed/looked down upon for it...called stupid....brainwashed..weak...told that I believe in fairy tales and that only idiots believe in God. It's a bit upsetting, to be honest.
What's even more upsetting though, is when I see/hear other "Christians" acting completely opposite of how Jesus wanted us to act. Judging, self-righteous, condemning, mean-spirited..just to name a few. This has perpetrated the image that all Christians are hypocrites and/or loonies. Ofcourse, then people who try to put me down bring up these "Christians" as examples of why my beliefs are invalid. They absolutely love to bring up the Crusades or the Inquisition..I try to point out that me saying I'm a Buddhist, won't magically make me a Buddhist..just like somebody calling themselves a Christian..isn't really a Christian if they willfully act against what Jesus taught.
I don't push my beliefs on anybody, unless they ask me questions and genuinely want to know.
I have noticed that ( and I'm pretty sure I've seen it even in this forum) - Christianity is often ridiculed...it makes me a bit sad since I don't ridicule atheists..and I'm sure if I started saying some of the stuff about atheists that is said about Christians..that I would get a lot of heat.
I know it's hard to relate to somebody who has a totally different belief system...one that you think is ridiculous, even..but I think it would be cool if people considered the next time they say "Christians are weak-minded people who can't deal with reality so they made up an imaginary guy in the sky to make themselves feel better" or something of the sort..that, well, to some people it's their heart and soul's belief. I hope this all made sense.... Cheers everyone!

What is strange to me is I grew up catholic and seemed most everyone I knew was christian or jewish(grew up in a jewish town). I now am agnostic. I too don't say atheist bc to me it sounds like you think you have it figured out and I don't claim to know anything. What is surprising that you and others say they are ridiculed for their beliefs when in my eyes most of the world is christian or at least believes in god. To me atheists are the minority but I am hearing different more and more often. I agree with what you said. There are many christians making a bad name out there spreading hate not love.

 

[Nordling]

A little about my opinion on agnosticism, and why I prefer "weak atheist." As my understanding of the word "agnostic" is that the existence of god(s) is IMPOSSIBLE to know, it strikes me that they too are making a blanket statement about belief. I say, I DON'T know but choose not to believe since I see no reason to believe but leave the possibility, no matter how remote, intact.

I do understand that many prefer the term "agnostic," because they think it seems less harsh.

 

[Jupiter551]

Agnostic is actually the only literally correct term, because even according to the strictest tenets of logic you can't "KNOW" something, even if you have enough evidence to reasonably believe it, or enough evidence to absolutely believe it, there is ALWAYS a possibility of being wrong, always. The key is though that this is far from being exclusive to a belief in god.

I don't know for sure that the loch ness monster doesn't exist - no matter how much evidence you produce to say she doesn't, there could be continual contingencies added; how do you know she doesn't have wings and flew away while no one was looking? How do we know she can't teleport herself to another place whenever anyone tries to find her? We don't. We can't know these things it's a logical impossibility BUT we can say that there is no evidence whatsoever to say that she does have such qualities, and that despite exhaustive searching no one has ever found her.

That's what atheist means in practical terms, someone who is by a technicality, in fact an agnostic. Christians, Muslims and the rest are actually technically agnostic too - they can't PROVE god(s) exist, so they CAN'T know for sure (s)he does, no matter how much they might proclaim otherwise.

 

[Nordling]

Agnostic is actually the only literally correct term, because even according to the strictest tenets of logic you can't "KNOW" something, even if you have enough evidence to reasonably believe it, or enough evidence to absolutely believe it, there is ALWAYS a possibility of being wrong, always. The key is though that this is far from being exclusive to a belief in god.

I don't know for sure that the loch ness monster doesn't exist - no matter how much evidence you produce to say she doesn't, there could be continual contingencies added; how do you know she doesn't have wings and flew away while no one was looking? How do we know she can't teleport herself to another place whenever anyone tries to find her? We don't. We can't know these things it's a logical impossibility BUT we can say that there is no evidence whatsoever to say that she does have such qualities, and that despite exhaustive searching no one has ever found her.

That's what atheist means in practical terms, someone who is by a technicality, in fact an agnostic. Christians, Muslims and the rest are actually technically agnostic too - they can't PROVE god(s) exist, so they CAN'T know for sure (s)he does, no matter how much they might proclaim otherwise.

Ah, but that's the paradox! If nothing can be absolutely known (gnosis), then neither can you KNOW that nothing can be absolutely UNKNOWN. I'll stick with weak atheist and avoid that Möbius strip.

 

[BetsyBooty]

Agnostic is actually the only literally correct term, because even according to the strictest tenets of logic you can't "KNOW" something, even if you have enough evidence to reasonably believe it, or enough evidence to absolutely believe it, there is ALWAYS a possibility of being wrong, always. The key is though that this is far from being exclusive to a belief in god.

I don't know for sure that the loch ness monster doesn't exist - no matter how much evidence you produce to say she doesn't, there could be continual contingencies added; how do you know she doesn't have wings and flew away while no one was looking? How do we know she can't teleport herself to another place whenever anyone tries to find her? We don't. We can't know these things it's a logical impossibility BUT we can say that there is no evidence whatsoever to say that she does have such qualities, and that despite exhaustive searching no one has ever found her.

That's what atheist means in practical terms, someone who is by a technicality, in fact an agnostic. Christians, Muslims and the rest are actually technically agnostic too - they can't PROVE god(s) exist, so they CAN'T know for sure (s)he does, no matter how much they might proclaim otherwise.

I think you may have formed yourself into a pretzel, goodsir. I, for one, am not ready to strike the word "know" from the dictionary.

 

[LadyLuna]

I never knew agnostic was about whether or not it had been proven. My understanding of it is:

religious: I believe there is a God, and this is it's/his form
spiritual: I believe there's something out there, but I'm not sure what it is
agnostic: I don't know whether or not I believe in a god, I'm still waiting on the evidence either way before I decide
atheist: I do not believe in any god

I fall under somewhere between religious and spiritual. I also believe that it is impossible to know god's true form, and that the truth is so complicated that it seems to contradict itself in places, and that we will all know what the truth is after we die.

 

[Jupiter551]

Agnostic is actually the only literally correct term, because even according to the strictest tenets of logic you can't "KNOW" something, even if you have enough evidence to reasonably believe it, or enough evidence to absolutely believe it, there is ALWAYS a possibility of being wrong, always. The key is though that this is far from being exclusive to a belief in god.

I don't know for sure that the loch ness monster doesn't exist - no matter how much evidence you produce to say she doesn't, there could be continual contingencies added; how do you know she doesn't have wings and flew away while no one was looking? How do we know she can't teleport herself to another place whenever anyone tries to find her? We don't. We can't know these things it's a logical impossibility BUT we can say that there is no evidence whatsoever to say that she does have such qualities, and that despite exhaustive searching no one has ever found her.

That's what atheist means in practical terms, someone who is by a technicality, in fact an agnostic. Christians, Muslims and the rest are actually technically agnostic too - they can't PROVE god(s) exist, so they CAN'T know for sure (s)he does, no matter how much they might proclaim otherwise.

Ah, but that's the paradox! If nothing can be absolutely known (gnosis), then neither can you KNOW that nothing can be absolutely UNKNOWN. I'll stick with weak atheist and avoid that Möbius strip.

Not at all, because we're talking about whether the existence of something can be 100% known, not whether reasoning is valid

If you dislike the word 'know' we could easily substitute the word 'prove'.

 

[Jupiter551]

I never knew agnostic was about whether or not it had been proven.

It's not, agnosticism is the belief that whether or not there is or isn't a god is not only unknown, but unknowable so far as human reasoning can deduce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Bertrand Russell uses the example of the celestial teapot. He argues that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it. Therefore, one's view with respect to the teapot would be an agnostic "ateapotist", because while they don't believe in the existence of the teapot, they don't claim to know for certain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

 

[JickyJuly]

Can 1 person then both believe in God and be agnostic?

 

[Red7227]

Can 1 person then both believe in God and be agnostic?

Are the gods of established religions real? Probably not, simply because reading though the various sources will show the evolution of these beliefs over time. Enki is a Sumerian god about 4,800 years old that was adopted by the Sumerians after an influx of semitic barbarians from the north of the country. In time Enki was elevated to the most senior god of the Sumarians replacing inanna. She was not a particularly nice chic anyway, so the replacement by Enki was generally a good thing.

Along comes Abraham second in charge of the temple of Ur (or Iruk, i'm too lazy to look it up) who had to depart due to fiscal irregularities. He goes to Canaan and starts his own religion, which is a much simplified and dumbed down version of the Sumerian religion, either because he thought Enki should be the only god or because the Canaanites were too retarded to follow a more complex religion.

Much of the torah is keeping the barely converted Canaanites from backsliding to their own religion. Read the old testament in that light and its going to be hard to take it seriously. That is without adding in christianity which ransacks the torah for dogma while making up its own gospels to shape the beliefs of its own followers.

If there is a god in all this, he is still Enki, the god of the semitic tribes north of Sumeria from 3,000 BC. Can he exist? Of course - science doesn't preclude anything - but the jewish, christian and islamic religions are a load of crap by any standards.

This is the problem with most established religions have, they don't think big enough. The Vatican has embraced natural selection and the big bang, it makes it clear that these things don't preclude or prevent belief in a god. Dogma isn't a big thing with the catholics, they have a lot of ritual, but dogmatic adherance to the letter of the bible isn't something they are big on.

 

[Nordling]

Agnostic is actually the only literally correct term, because even according to the strictest tenets of logic you can't "KNOW" something, even if you have enough evidence to reasonably believe it, or enough evidence to absolutely believe it, there is ALWAYS a possibility of being wrong, always. The key is though that this is far from being exclusive to a belief in god.

I don't know for sure that the loch ness monster doesn't exist - no matter how much evidence you produce to say she doesn't, there could be continual contingencies added; how do you know she doesn't have wings and flew away while no one was looking? How do we know she can't teleport herself to another place whenever anyone tries to find her? We don't. We can't know these things it's a logical impossibility BUT we can say that there is no evidence whatsoever to say that she does have such qualities, and that despite exhaustive searching no one has ever found her.

That's what atheist means in practical terms, someone who is by a technicality, in fact an agnostic. Christians, Muslims and the rest are actually technically agnostic too - they can't PROVE god(s) exist, so they CAN'T know for sure (s)he does, no matter how much they might proclaim otherwise.

Ah, but that's the paradox! If nothing can be absolutely known (gnosis), then neither can you KNOW that nothing can be absolutely UNKNOWN. I'll stick with weak atheist and avoid that Möbius strip.

Not at all, because we're talking about whether the existence of something can be 100% known, not whether reasoning is valid

If you dislike the word 'know' we could easily substitute the word 'prove'.

I don't dislike the word "know." I'm saying that a mindset (agnosticism) can't claim that's something is impossible since that in itself is claiming the impossible is knowable."I know I can't know."

Agnosticism is about making an unprovable (at this moment in time) claim...just as theism or strong atheism do.

 

[Jupiter551]

Can 1 person then both believe in God and be agnostic?

They can believe that there is a god or gods, but that their nature is unknowable.

=

Agnosticism is about making an unprovable (at this moment in time) claim...just as theism or strong atheism do.

Not at all. It is empirically possible to prove you can't know that something doesn't exist - the celestial teapot explained above is an example. It is not, however, empirically possible to know that something DOES exist (ie a god) without falsifiable evidence...

To suggest otherwise is simply to decide that logical reasoning has no place in the discussion and we can all go about making any outrageous claim we wish, assert that it has scientific truth, and no one can show otherwise.

Give me an example of something you can prove doesn't exist. There are countless examples of things you can prove DO exist.

 

[Nordling]

Can 1 person then both believe in God and be agnostic?

They can believe that there is a god or gods, but that their nature is unknowable.

=

Agnosticism is about making an unprovable (at this moment in time) claim...just as theism or strong atheism do.

Not at all. It is empirically possible to prove you can't know that something doesn't exist - the celestial teapot explained above is an example. It is not, however, empirically possible to know that something DOES exist (ie a god) without falsifiable evidence...

To suggest otherwise is simply to decide that logical reasoning has no place in the discussion and we can all go about making any outrageous claim we wish, assert that it has scientific truth, and no one can show otherwise.

Give me an example of something you can prove doesn't exist. There are countless examples of things you can prove DO exist.

It isn't about proving something doesn't exist. It's about claiming that it's impossible...presumably forever to prove something DOES exist. I don't have faith that at some point god(s) will be proven or disproven, but I won't say that's always going to be true.

 

[Raven_Chance]

The selection I want isn't there...
I believe in God 100% however I also believe that religions are flawed and I do not believe that you Have to go to church to find Him.
:-D

 

[Alana Cruise]

Agnostic is actually the only literally correct term, because even according to the strictest tenets of logic you can't "KNOW" something, even if you have enough evidence to reasonably believe it, or enough evidence to absolutely believe it, there is ALWAYS a possibility of being wrong, always. The key is though that this is far from being exclusive to a belief in god.

I don't know for sure that the loch ness monster doesn't exist - no matter how much evidence you produce to say she doesn't, there could be continual contingencies added; how do you know she doesn't have wings and flew away while no one was looking? How do we know she can't teleport herself to another place whenever anyone tries to find her? We don't. We can't know these things it's a logical impossibility BUT we can say that there is no evidence whatsoever to say that she does have such qualities, and that despite exhaustive searching no one has ever found her.

That's what atheist means in practical terms, someone who is by a technicality, in fact an agnostic. Christians, Muslims and the rest are actually technically agnostic too - they can't PROVE god(s) exist, so they CAN'T know for sure (s)he does, no matter how much they might proclaim otherwise.

Ah, but that's the paradox! If nothing can be absolutely known (gnosis), then neither can you KNOW that nothing can be absolutely UNKNOWN. I'll stick with weak atheist and avoid that Möbius strip.

Not at all, because we're talking about whether the existence of something can be 100% known, not whether reasoning is valid

If you dislike the word 'know' we could easily substitute the word 'prove'.

I don't dislike the word "know." I'm saying that a mindset (agnosticism) can't claim that's something is impossible since that in itself is claiming the impossible is knowable."I know I can't know."

Agnosticism is about making an unprovable (at this moment in time) claim...just as theism or strong atheism do.

I have heard the difference between agnostic and atheist is balls :lol: but if you literally break down the word a=no without or against and gnostic=pertaining to knowldege so in a sense it means who the fuck knows. That is my take

 

[Jupiter551]

Agnostic is actually the only literally correct term, because even according to the strictest tenets of logic you can't "KNOW" something, even if you have enough evidence to reasonably believe it, or enough evidence to absolutely believe it, there is ALWAYS a possibility of being wrong, always. The key is though that this is far from being exclusive to a belief in god.

I don't know for sure that the loch ness monster doesn't exist - no matter how much evidence you produce to say she doesn't, there could be continual contingencies added; how do you know she doesn't have wings and flew away while no one was looking? How do we know she can't teleport herself to another place whenever anyone tries to find her? We don't. We can't know these things it's a logical impossibility BUT we can say that there is no evidence whatsoever to say that she does have such qualities, and that despite exhaustive searching no one has ever found her.

That's what atheist means in practical terms, someone who is by a technicality, in fact an agnostic. Christians, Muslims and the rest are actually technically agnostic too - they can't PROVE god(s) exist, so they CAN'T know for sure (s)he does, no matter how much they might proclaim otherwise.

Ah, but that's the paradox! If nothing can be absolutely known (gnosis), then neither can you KNOW that nothing can be absolutely UNKNOWN. I'll stick with weak atheist and avoid that Möbius strip.

Not at all, because we're talking about whether the existence of something can be 100% known, not whether reasoning is valid

If you dislike the word 'know' we could easily substitute the word 'prove'.

I don't dislike the word "know." I'm saying that a mindset (agnosticism) can't claim that's something is impossible since that in itself is claiming the impossible is knowable."I know I can't know."

Agnosticism is about making an unprovable (at this moment in time) claim...just as theism or strong atheism do.

I have heard the difference between agnostic and atheist is balls :lol: but if you literally break down the word a=no without or against and gnostic=pertaining to knowldege so in a sense it means who the fuck knows. That is my take

Exactly right - agnostic is precisely that; who the fuck knows. But there are within that several stances (and potentially any stance you can think of), from believing there is no god but not being 100% sure to believing there might be a god but not being 100% sure.

The only point I was trying to make is that it is empirically possible to prove the existence of something, it is not however empirically possible to disprove the existence of something. Proof requires evidence, and there is no evidence with which to either prove OR disprove something that doesn't exist. Seriously, pick something and try it. Try and disprove the existence of Santa Claus if you don't believe me. You can't do it, not with empirical evidence because something that doesn't exist doesn't leave any evidence to point to.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

The only point I was trying to make is that it is empirically possible to prove the existence of something, it is not however empirically possible to disprove the existence of something. Proof requires evidence, and there is no evidence with which to either prove OR disprove something that doesn't exist. Seriously, pick something and try it. Try and disprove the existence of Santa Claus if you don't believe me. You can't do it, not with empirical evidence because something that doesn't exist doesn't leave any evidence to point to.

What about a perpetual motion machine?, without digging out my old physics books,and just depending on the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion.

Perpetual motion describes "motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction."[2] It can also be described as "the motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear".[3] There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system would violate the first and/or second law of thermodynamics.

People have claimed the existed but because the violate the laws of physics they can't exist, not at least in this universe.

Back on topic, when I say I am agnostic, I am saying both that I don't know if a God exists or not. But more importantly for me, even a God does exist I don't think he impacts my life.
In particular the minister or priest, attempts to answer the grieving mom who lost their child. The mom will cry out " Why didn't God answer my prayers, why would he take my sweet little baby." The priest will answer something along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways." I find that to bea singularly unsatisfying answer. What the heck is the point of having a God if he allows babies to die of massacres, starvation, or horrible diseases, evil man to gain power, or wars etc.

 

[schlmoe]

I think you may have formed yourself into a pretzel, goodsir. I, for one, am not ready to strike the word "know" from the dictionary.

Does the pretzel indicate circular logic or does it represent closed-mindedness? :mrgreen:

 

[SatanJonez]

My parents waitied until I was about 12 to start picking faiths. They stuck with Christianity for awhile, even sent me to church camp (funny enough where I met my first girlfriend). I never really liked the whole idea and generally it didn't make sense to me. I read the bible & decided for myself I didn't agree with a lot of the things inside of it. The rules seemed outdated & very broad ranged.

I have mixed faiths. Part of me really likes the idea of multiple Gods, like the Catholics have for saints or the ancient greeks. A God for this, a God for that, a Goddess here & a Goddess there (I've suddenly turned into Dr. Seuss). The thought that there are all these Gods, Goddess, Demigods and such that all have to work together is amusing and fun to consider.

The other part of me likes the main, core ideas/rules behind Modern Satanism, minus the magic nonsense (although it would be cool if I could logically wrap my mind around believing in those parts). You don't hurt animals or children. Only give advice when it's asked for. If someone disrespects you, you have every right to disrespect them back. That whole "turn the other cheek" business never set well with me. Oh and you're your own God/Goddess. I like the idea for thanking myself when something awesome happens in my life that I was able to accomplish & the idea of blaming myself and learning from my mistakes when I screw something up. I should say I like that idea being attached to my "beliefs".

TL;DR: I would classify myself as an "odd, Modern Satanist". I don't believe in God in the traditional sense. There is no one I pray to or thank when things go right, except myself. I can't even say as a small child when being taught about the general idea of God that it sounded "right". I think it'd be swell if there was some all knowing, all seeing being, but as of right now it just seems like the universe is organized chaos in the most beautiful way.

 

[Jupiter551]

The only point I was trying to make is that it is empirically possible to prove the existence of something, it is not however empirically possible to disprove the existence of something. Proof requires evidence, and there is no evidence with which to either prove OR disprove something that doesn't exist. Seriously, pick something and try it. Try and disprove the existence of Santa Claus if you don't believe me. You can't do it, not with empirical evidence because something that doesn't exist doesn't leave any evidence to point to.

What about a perpetual motion machine?, without digging out my old physics books,and just depending on the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion.

Perpetual motion describes "motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction."[2] It can also be described as "the motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear".[3] There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system would violate the first and/or second law of thermodynamics.

People have claimed the existed but because the violate the laws of physics they can't exist, not at least in this universe.

Well, a couple of things I suspect you're already aware of - a) until such a machine is built it's only theoretical and a theory isn't proof, b) laws of science have been wrong before, and will be wrong again (or more precisely, our understanding of them)

Bottom line - if no one can build it, you can't prove it. You can have a theory that seems to add up while being at odds with the known laws of physics - that's not proof. It's an interesting theory worthy of further research.

You can't prove it without demonstrable evidence, you can theorise plenty of things it's not possible to prove. Until such a machine could be built it's impossible to prove or disprove outside of a hypothesis. In essence you made my point for me - the laws of thermodynamics are intact precisely because it is NOT proven, and yet it is still impossible to DISPROVE.

Scientists postulate that if the universe were to undergo a second 'big bang' somehow that the resulting collision of atoms would create an entirely new table of elements, none of which are at all similar to any of the ones we have now. It's a theory, it works on paper according to the knowledge we have right now, but you can't prove it without creating, surviving and observing a big bang. Again though, it can't be disproven unless new evidence comes to light disproving the theory on paper.

It's worth noting that in both cases there is solid theoretical evidence, based on facts derived from real-world empirical evidence while there has never been even solid scientific theoretical evidence for the existence of a divine intelligence!

 

[bob]

It's not, agnosticism is the belief that whether or not there is or isn't a god is not only unknown, but unknowable so far as human reasoning can deduce.

personally, i think that agnostics have the only acceptable approach to god, from the standpoint of human rationality.....seems to be that the whole point behind the disciplines i'll loosely define as spiritual is to create an alternative approach to those questions that we, as curious explorers, cannot answer with our big ol' frontal lobes.

and religious systems are just ways to gather like minded individuals into the comfort of a community where folks can share their common approach.

it's the attempt to apply rational thought to religious systems that make them so dangerous.....as biological creatures, we seek survival, and in the human condition that translates into some variation on playing to win.....so we start religious history with the divinity or our leaders....but the only empirical "proof" of god's existence is a still a numbers game, where the god with the biggest team wins.
On a personal level, this is, for the most part, of no consequence.....but even someone who doesn't follow sports at all cannot help but know that they exist. Those who do follow sports will eventually let you know about them.

It's the same with religion. And why they all, imo, fail the very teachings that gives them meaning.

 

[Red7227]

personally, i think that agnostics have the only acceptable approach to god, from the standpoint of human rationality.....seems to be that the whole point behind the disciplines i'll loosely define as spiritual is to create an alternative approach to those questions that we, as curious explorers, cannot answer with our big ol' frontal lobes.

Humans fear the unknown, and invent rules of varying degrees of plausibility to explain it. Gods have proven to be a common solution to the unknown. Not knowing and not caring is a much harder approach, which is why science has always had a hard time being accepted. These days however higher levels of education provide answers to a lot more questions and rules to govern questions that do not yet have answers, making gods irrelevant. There is nothing in science to preclude the existence of gods, but there is also nothing in science that requires the existence of gods. Its easy to be critical of established religions because they generally make no sense. However, only a very stupid atheist would take that further as explicit evidence that there are no gods.

Gods are of no consequence to science. This makes atheism is the natural stake of an rational person who does not fear the unknown.

 

[Lintilla]

It seems that people like to use agnostic as a third category because they're (rightfully, in my opinion) not willing to say that they believe there definitely is no god, and they believe that being an atheist requires that level of certainty. It's also still socially unacceptable, at least in many places, to be an atheist, which is another good reason to shy away from the label. A Darwin fish on your bumper can get your car keyed or worse in many parts of this country...

But atheism/theism is not a spectrum*. You either believe there is a god or you don't. Most people who say they're agnostic are indeed agnostic atheists for reasons that Jupiter more or less explained already. Agnosticism and gnosticism are opposite epistemological positions (whether you believe it is possible to have knowledge of god), atheism and theism are opposite ontological positions (whether you actually have a belief in god or not). If you turn that into a diagram, you get this:



*Agnosticism and gnosticism, on the other hand, in some cases could be considered two ends of a spectrum... e.g. you believe it's possible to know that there is a god but you don't believe you can know anything beyond that, or you believe it's possible to know that there is a god AND that he's a guy with purple skin but that we definitely can never know his hair colour, etc. Personally I find epistemology tiring, and most people who try to argue on the nature of knowledge itself anywhere I've got moderator powers find themselves banned if they keep it up

 

[bob]

It seems that people like to use agnostic as a third category because they're (rightfully, in my opinion) not willing to say that they believe there definitely is no god, and they believe that being an atheist requires that level of certainty.

heeeheeeheee.....which is, to my odd way of thinking, a very rational conclusion to reach...
what has always struck me, tho (and what probably sounds like a thorough dissing of science), is that atheism is a part of the spectrum of faith......the faith that our big ol' frontal lobes can provide the answers to everything.....just because it rejects god as the object that faith doesn't make it immune to the basic tenet of a faith based system.....which i'm gonna go out on a limb and define as "not being the creators of our reality"

and it's that one thing....that blend of the rational and the irrational....that truth of consciousness....that puts the disciplines of science and spirituality on equal footing in some circles.....and why both of them have started looking at each other with a mix of fear and curiosity.

besides...it's one of the amusing truths that we humans always have to have 3 catagories after dissecting something :lol:

 

[LadyLuna]

besides...it's one of the amusing truths that we humans always have to have 3 catagories after dissecting something :lol:

Really? Weird, that's not what I've seen...

I've noticed that it usually starts with either two or three, but eventually things crop up that don't fit any of the available options, and eventually enough of them come together. Usually, when we've actually finished with something, there usually turns out to be 6-12 categories.

-We started with solid, liquid, gas, but now we have plasma, I'm excited to see what #5 and #6 will turn out to be!
-We started with Male and Female, then we found Transvestites, now we have the whole Transgender community as well as neuters
-We started with gay and straight, then we got bisexual, now we also have pansexual and asexual
-first there was plant, animal, and dead matter. Now there's also bacteria, and virus, and lichens...

Yup, we never seem to be able to keep anything in those 2-3 categories that we start with.

 

[Red7227]

But atheism/theism is not a spectrum. You either believe there is a god or you don't.

That only works if your theist is a Christian. Christians are nearly as big a bunch of atheists as I am. There are millions of gods around the world and the christians deny them all. If we both deny every other god on the planet, we are left with the only point of contention being the existence of the christian god. That being the case an atheist is the only valid position because the christian, jewish and islamic god doesn't exist. There is a paper trail extending back 3,000 years that shows that he was fabricated by Abraham. If all these christians then decide that Enki is real and that is who them meant all the time, then yup I can deny him to, because I can safely assume that he too was a fabrication of some shaman somewhere. We are back to the natural state of an atheist. I do not need to deny the existence of things that other people propose without evidence. This does not preclude the existence of gods, it simply means that until such time as one actually does something measurable they can be ignored.

 

[lordmagellan]

besides...it's one of the amusing truths that we humans always have to have 3 catagories after dissecting something :lol:

Really? Weird, that's not what I've seen...

I've noticed that it usually starts with either two or three, but eventually things crop up that don't fit any of the available options, and eventually enough of them come together. Usually, when we've actually finished with something, there usually turns out to be 6-12 categories.

-We started with solid, liquid, gas, but now we have plasma, I'm excited to see what #5 and #6 will turn out to be!
-We started with Male and Female, then we found Transvestites, now we have the whole Transgender community as well as neuters
-We started with gay and straight, then we got bisexual, now we also have pansexual and asexual
-first there was plant, animal, and dead matter. Now there's also bacteria, and virus, and lichens...

Yup, we never seem to be able to keep anything in those 2-3 categories that we start with.

You left out hermaphrodites, which were around probably before male and female.

And you neglected fungi. Don't forget the mushrooms! They help you grow and give you extra lives. And some really good ones take you to an alternate plane of existence.

 

[BetsyBooty]

I think you may have formed yourself into a pretzel, goodsir. I, for one, am not ready to strike the word "know" from the dictionary.

Does the pretzel indicate circular logic or does it represent closed-mindedness? :mrgreen:

The pretzel indicates a stunningly complex logical contortion, to wit: Atheist is an improper term, because non-existence can never be proven, and therefore we cannot prove the non-existence of God.

An atheist, if I'm not mistaken, is defined as someone who does not believe in God. Since when is proof a prerequisite for belief or non-belief?

(And pardon the objectification, but I find pretzelized logic quite sexy.)

 

[Nordling]

I think you may have formed yourself into a pretzel, goodsir. I, for one, am not ready to strike the word "know" from the dictionary.

Does the pretzel indicate circular logic or does it represent closed-mindedness? :mrgreen:

The pretzel indicates a stunningly complex logical contortion, to wit: Atheist is an improper term, because non-existence can never be proven, and therefore we cannot prove the non-existence of God.

An atheist, if I'm not mistaken, is defined as someone who does not believe in God. Since when is proof a prerequisite for belief or non-belief?

(And pardon the objectification, but I find pretzelized logic quite sexy.)

Exactly! To me, "agnostic" is simply unnecessary, other than as a euphemism. Various types of atheists cover all non-theists, so why cloud the water with a another pretzel, no matter how sexy? lol