Hi,

I'm redarmy11 and I'm a cowardly, fence-sitting agnostic. I is feeling left out. :(

Theists: show me the Light and the Way.
Atheists: convert me to the Dark Side.

Go.

P. S. You are all mad. :)

This could be an interesting discussion if framed correctly and not a thread that appears to be created out of frustrated response to the trolling of other members. Closed for now.

Edit: After receiving a couple of PMs from a couple of members, I've decided to reopen this thread. Please keep it nice.

Ta Skin.

So. Where was I? Ah yes..

Theists, atheists: you are all mad. :)

As I see it, there is no more compelling evidence for not believing in God than there is for believing.

In fact, I see no compelling reasons at all for adopting either stance.

What do I mean by compelling? Well, lets say strong enough evidence to convince a neutral like me.

The only rational position, it seems to me, is to suspend judgement until such evidence emerges as to put the existence or non-existence of God (or gods) beyond any reasonable doubt.

Certainly one can say that, given the lack of compelling evidence in favour, it's reasonable to infer that gods probably don't exist. But that still leaves room for doubt, no matter how small. Can we fill that gap with anything other than faith, intuition, personal belief? Doesn't that small element of doubt compel you to join me on the fence, awaiting further evidence, open to the possibility that everything you know is wrong?

It's the 'strong' atheists who interest me most in all of this: those who are 100% certain that no Gods exist. Identify yourselves, please, and justify your position.

Mortal soul...isnt that a contradiction in terms?

A soul by its very nature would be immortal, no?

So, you have to decide whether you have an immortal soul or not...because if you don't, what difference does it make whether Gods exist or not.

If you do have an immortal soul, then you stand the risk of your soul's subjectivity to the will and judgment of possible higher beings.

Hi,

I'm redarmy11 and I'm a cowardly, fence-sitting agnostic. I is feeling left out. :(

Theists: show me the Light and the Way.
Atheists: convert me to the Dark Side.

Go.

P. S. You are all mad. :)

Theism is all about discovering the absolute truth and achieving the highest degree of enjoyment, the point where you enjoy every infinitesmal moment and there is no more suffering, no more anger, fear, sorrow, agony, boredom, doubt, sadness, confusion, or any degree of unpleasantness, one who has acheived this is a perfected one, one who dwells in the kingdom

God is the original one, from which all the innumerable universes emanate from, the primordial one, the self-originating one, how can the concepts like beginnimg, middle or end touch God? He is without origin, the beginningless unchanging, eternal, ever-existing one, he is the source of the highest happiness

What you focus on or concentrate on you achieve, so someone with great faith in God quickly achieves God, their mind is filled with thoughts of God, they constantly focus on God and thus intensely concentrate upon God

Carcano: a good point. It was a slip of the fingers. I suppose I meant: do battle over it here now on Earth, and thus save or condemn it for all eternity.

So I'll decide on that first, then. How do I do this?

When you say 'decide' is it simply just a matter of tossing a coin and falling one way or the other - or are there more reliable ways of finding out for sure?

Damn, VitalOne, I was right with you there up to here:
What you focus on or concentrate on you achieve, so someone with great faith in God quickly achieves God, their mind is filled with thoughts of God, they constantly focus on God and thus intensely concentrate upon God
So in order to believe in God... I must first have Faith (ie believe in God)?

Where can I find the necessary Faith? Light my fire, baby.

When you say 'decide' is it simply just a matter of tossing a coin and falling one way or the other - or are there more reliable ways of finding out for sure?
For most people it IS a matter of merely deciding...based on whatever they find consoling, or whatever requires the least accountability.

For those with more integrity believing or disbelieving is unimportant...they want to 'know'.

Damn, VitalOne, I was right with you there up to here:

So in order to believe in God... I must first have Faith (ie believe in God)?

Where can I find the necessary Faith? Light my fire, baby.

You don't have to have faith if you don't want to...you can instead believe in the existence of God and decide to control your mind, body and senses to destroy all your insecurities which cause you anger, fear, sorrow, and all forms of suffering and achieve the highest enjoyment

Either way, let's look at it this way, if atheists are wrong they go to hell or some unpleasant destination, if theists are wrong then there's really no consequence, all that happens after death is deep sleep or no consciousness...which is the better choice?

Ta Skin.

So. Where was I? Ah yes..

Theists, atheists: you are all mad. :)

As I see it, there is no more compelling evidence for not believing in God than there is for believing.

In fact, I see no compelling reasons at all for adopting either stance.

What do I mean by compelling? Well, lets say strong enough evidence to convince a neutral like me.


That sounds like the weak atheist position :). IMO you're allready in a good spot.

That sounds like the weak atheist position :). IMO you're allready in a good spot.

There's no such thing as a weak atheist, weak atheists are really just agnostics they just want to claim atheism

You don't have to have faith if you don't want to...
I want to, I want to.
Either way, let's look at it this way, if atheists are wrong they go to hell or some unpleasant destination, if theists are wrong then there's really no consequence, all that happens after death is deep sleep or no consciousness...which is the better choice?
But that's just so... lacking in integrity. If I believe I have to go to church and pray and everything! I like a nice lie-in on Sunday mornings.:(

It'll take a stronger argument than that to get me out of bed and into my best suit.
There's no such thing as a weak atheist, weak atheists are really just agnostics they just want to claim atheism
I agree with this. The distinction seems really fuzzy to me. Would someone like to clarify?

I want to, I want to.
Well all you really have to do is believe that God exists, then think of the greatness, wonder, mystery, etc...of God


But that's just so... lacking in integrity. If I believe I have to go to church and pray and everything! I like a nice lie-in on Sunday mornings.:(

It'll take a stronger argument than that to get me out of bed and into my best suit.
You don't have to go to Church and pray every Sunday or whatever...rather what's really important is your karma

Many who constantly go to Church condition themselves to the concept that God is "boring", "painful", "unpleasant", "strenous", etc.. and thus avoid thoughts of God (causing them more harm than good), this is the true meaning of why not using God's name in vain

Let us look at what Jesus himself considers most important:
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.' "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."- Luke 10:25-37
Remember either way if atheists are right, theists still win because after death is no more consciousness, so you would never be thinking that you wasted time or anything

If theists are right, atheists go to hell or some unpleasant destination, and true theists go to heaven

Well all you really have to do is believe that God exists, then think of the greatness, wonder, mystery, etc...of God
I tried this, VO. I have to say that I suffer from slight ADHD, though, and could only manage about fifteen seconds of contemplating the wonder and mystery of God before my mind started to wander - and I started thinking about other wonderful, mysterious things, like dolphins, eyes and stars!

I am starting to feel a warm, fuzzy glow though. It might be Faith, it might be vodka, I'm not sure.

Nevertheless, I do feel like the forces of Light are winning so far. Someone had better come by and pull me over to the Dark side - fast!

Scientists, where is your Faith?

As I see it, there is no more compelling evidence for not believing in God than there is for believing.
...
The only rational position, it seems to me, is to suspend judgement until such evidence emerges as to put the existence or non-existence of God (or gods) beyond any reasonable doubt.

I suspect that taking the path of seeking evidence (for or against) will never lead to satisfactory results.

It is already inherent in the process of seeking and collecting evidence, that any evidence is relevant only until new evidence is found.
So the suspense is already inherent in the evidence approach.


Certainly one can say that, given the lack of compelling evidence in favour, it's reasonable to infer that gods probably don't exist. But that still leaves room for doubt, no matter how small. Can we fill that gap with anything other than faith, intuition, personal belief? Doesn't that small element of doubt compel you to join me on the fence, awaiting further evidence, open to the possibility that everything you know is wrong?

Taking the path of evidence, one will always sit on the fence.
I don't mean to make light - but sitting on the fence is not exactly comfortable, and it hurts your bum.

So we're all agnostics then. There's no other possible rational position. Yes?

Hi,

I'm redarmy11 and I'm a cowardly, fence-sitting agnostic. I is feeling left out. :(

Theists: show me the Light and the Way.
Atheists: convert me to the Dark Side.



If you feel left out it is only because you choose to do so. At anytime you

can convert yourself, transform yourself or enlighten yourself to any of

the "way" you have mentioned as well as others. No one but yourself is

stopping you from becoming who you want to be. Those on either side are

always there to try to convince you their "way" is the only way instead of

believing that any way is the right way to the one who chooses that way.

So become all that you want to become, no one can stop you. I surly want

you to only live and think they way you choose to. You will hear many

stories as to who is right and wrong but in the end you must decide which is

best for you. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong you be the judge as to

who is who. Good luck in finding your path in like and remember you can

always change as many people do and become a hypocrite.

So we're all agnostics then. There's no other possible rational position. Yes?

I don't think this follows. Perhaps there are some people out there, with special powers, who can directly discern reality ... given that the distinction reality vs. imagination is real ...

Also, (strong) agnosticism is a nightmare to consistently apply and live in.


I am more inclined though to ponder the possibility that the path of evidence might not be the only way to successfully orient ourselves in life.
That perhaps the basis for our actions could be a moral system. Namely, as the recent research into human cognition and decision-making suggests, the important factor for human action are preferences and values (and as such are part of a moral system).

However, preferences and values are sometimes more difficult to name or put into words than that which we consider "evidence" or "facts", even though it is the preferences and values that lead our actions.

This difficulty is augmented by the tendency of the human mind to have biases - such as the one that leads us to think that if something pops up in our mind first, it is the most relevant and true - which is not necessarily so.

If you feel left out it is only because you choose to do so.

As the emoticon in redarmy 11's posts intimates, he is unhappy with being left out, he perceives this being left out as something negative. (But do correct me if I'm wrong, redarmy 11.)

You say that he chose this. This is to say he chose an option that he himself perceives as negative or disadvantageous.

Only a person who is evil or cognitively and morally corrupt would choose an option that he himself perceives as negative or disadvantageous.

Hi,

I'm redarmy11 and I'm a cowardly, fence-sitting agnostic. I is feeling left out. :(

Theists: show me the Light and the Way.
Atheists: convert me to the Dark Side.

Go.

P. S. You are all mad. :)
I can't understand why anyone would take up your invitation: 1) it seems disingenuous 2) it has a strange idea about how one comes to believe something....

I want to change him because I want to save him.

I want to change him because I want to save him.

From what?

I want to change him because I want to save him.

So you think he is actually looking to be convinced of something.

Maybe, maybe he's not. But if he inadvertently realises certain truths along the way, something may come of it.

Maybe, maybe he's not. But if he inadvertently realises certain truths along the way, something may come of it.

Who's truths, your's mine or someone eles's?

I can't understant why anyone would want to change you. And I am not agnostic.
Well, at least some of the Faithful would like to change me. I know this because they knock on my door at regular intervals for that express purpose. As far as the unbelievers are concerned: well, I suppose I'm just interested in finding out exactly what they believe. Especially, as I said, those identifying as strong athiests (so far come there none, but I live in hope).
Only a person who is evil or cognitively and morally corrupt would choose an option that he himself perceives as negative or disadvantageous.
Depressed people often do this. You could make a good case for cognitive corruption; less so for moral corruption.

P. S. Despite the clear cry for help that is my opening post I don't truly anticipate coming out of this having had my beliefs changed significantly one way or the other. But: I'm willing someone to pull me out of my hellish limbo. ;)
I don't think this follows. Perhaps there are some people out there, with special powers, who can directly discern reality ... given that the distinction reality vs. imagination is real ...

Also, (strong) agnosticism is a nightmare to consistently apply and live in.


I am more inclined though to ponder the possibility that the path of evidence might not be the only way to successfully orient ourselves in life.
That perhaps the basis for our actions could be a moral system. Namely, as the recent research into human cognition and decision-making suggests, the important factor for human action are preferences and values (and as such are part of a moral system).

However, preferences and values are sometimes more difficult to name or put into words than that which we consider "evidence" or "facts", even though it is the preferences and values that lead our actions.

This difficulty is augmented by the tendency of the human mind to have biases - such as the one that leads us to think that if something pops up in our mind first, it is the most relevant and true - which is not necessarily so.
If our contradictory realities are just a muddled, all-too-human mess of preconceptions, biases and blinkered observations (and I agree, they are :)) God would seem to be as real as gravity. Are there any reliable tools at all that I can use to assess their relative validity? Or is it all just a matter of which particular fiction you put your faith in?

Hi,

I'm redarmy11 and I'm a cowardly, fence-sitting agnostic. I is feeling left out. :(

Theists: show me the Light and the Way.
Atheists: convert me to the Dark Side.

Go.

P. S. You are all mad. :)

I don't believe you are agnostic since it is logically impossible to be one.

hellish limbo

I think you like it there! :)

Grantywanty: it's not disingenuous at all. Theist-athiest conflicts rage across these forums.

I've yet to see theists offer any compelling evidence that God exists.
I've yet to see atheists (?) offer any compelling evidence that he doesn't.

I want to hear a convincing case presented for either belief - and I want it now!

Well, at least some of the Faithful would like to change me. I know this because they knock on my door at regular intervals for that express purpose. As far as the unbelievers are concerned: well, I suppose I'm just interested in finding out exactly what they believe. Especially, as I said, those identifying as strong athiests (so far come there none, but I live in hope).


I am certainly not one of the Faithful or any kind of monotheist. I don't think your post shows much genuine interest. It seems like a kind of double trolling, creative to that extent. ' dance in front of me so I can laugh at you both'. This might not have been your intent, but it sure came off that way.

I don't believe you are agnostic since it is logically impossible to be one.
I'm all ears.

Grantywanty: it's not disingenuous at all. Theist-athiest conflicts rage across these forums.

I've yet to see theists offer any compelling evidence that God exists.
I've yet to see atheists (?) offer any compelling evidence that he doesn't.

I want to hear a convincing case presented for either belief - and I want it now!
See now this post is getting closer to honest. Now you are not simply pretending to be passive, but actually showing that you have a position.

The poor me is gone. The feeling left out is gone. I still think you want to show people that their arguments are futile. I also, like some of the others, think you are content where you are. And that was the primary thing that struck me as disingenuous about the OP.

I am certainly not one of the Faithful or any kind of monotheist. I don't think your post shows much genuine interest. It seems like a kind of double trolling, creative to that extent. ' dance in front of me so I can laugh at you both'. This might not have been your intent, but it sure came off that way.
That. Is. My. Intent.

I find both the theist and athiest positions absurd.

Someone prove me wrong.

Grantywanty: it's not disingenuous at all. Theist-athiest conflicts rage across these forums.

I've yet to see theists offer any compelling evidence that God exists.
I've yet to see atheists (?) offer any compelling evidence that he doesn't.

I want to hear a convincing case presented for either belief - and I want it now!


I can only say that I believe in myself and little else in todays world. Only

you can make your decision as to what you want to think and the way you

want to think. You know the arguments over both directions. We can't

convince you , you must convince yourself.

You could make a good case for cognitive corruption; less so for moral corruption.

I will argue that the two are connected and mutually conditioning each other.


P. S. Despite the clear cry for help that is my opening post I don't truly anticipate coming out of this having had my beliefs changed significantly one way or the other. But: I'm willing someone to pull me out of my hellish limbo. ;)

Ah, prince(ss) on the white horse, where are you ... :o

Seriously - The possibility that you'll just have to do it yourself might be necessary to consider.


If our contradictory realities are just a muddled, all-too-human mess of preconceptions, biases and blinkered observations (and I agree, they are :)) God would seem to be as real as gravity. Are there any reliable tools at all that I can use to assess their relative validity? Or is it all just a matter of which particular fiction you put your faith in?

I'm not a Buddhist, but I think Buddhism makes some good points, such as this one -
In relation to the above question of yours, the Buddhist question to ask might be this -

Days fly past, fly past, what am I doing right now?
What, when I do it, will be for my long-term welfare and happiness?

I can only say that I believe in myself and little else in todays world. Only

you can make your decision as to what you want to think and the way you

want to think. You know the arguments over both directions. We can't

convince you , you must convince yourself.
Forget about me.

Do you believe that there is a God? If so, please present the evidence for your belief.

Or: do you believe that there is no God? If so, please present the evidence for your belief.

There is only me.

That you know of.

That you know of.

That I am certain of.

I must away awhile.
It's the 'strong' atheists who interest me most in all of this: those who are 100% certain that no Gods exist. Identify yourselves, please, and justify your position.
Come out, come out, wherever you are.

That. Is. My. Intent.

I find both the theist and athiest positions absurd.

Someone prove me wrong.

If the theists are right, it does not necessarily follow that they can prove it to you. Belief should be based on experience, at least in part, despite whatever the monotheists say about faith.

Just keep in mind that your not having had certain experiences, interest, openness, acceptance or, for example, ability to stop the little verbal machine in your mind - has given you a certain way of perceiving things. That when theists come to you - with more words to add to all those running around in your brain - and this does not convince you is proof of nothing. It might indicate how clever you or they are or aren't with words and a lot of abstract mulling, but that has very little to do with how we learn things, especially fundamental things or things that challenge fundamentally how we experience and think.

And that applies to athiests also. Just because the athiests cannot convince you proves very little about the truth of their position.

Yeah!
Redarmy11, you're a cheeky bastard and I for one adore you for that.
You should play poker BTW ( I know you already do).

I think you should lean to the "dark side" of the fence and hope like Hell ( whoops, unintentional reference slipping out as part of an atheists natural turn of phrase) that you get sucked down into the gloomy "eternal hellfire" defying realm.
Come play with us, no-one will guilt you out for swearing, letting fly with the odd politically incorrect statement( forgiveness is ours, we fear not the wrath of our "creator", we love you for having the life that is yours to live, LIVE!), yes folks, as an atheist it is unsaid that every moment is savoured for the realtime occurrence that it is, no second chances, no second takes, no rewind and start the B grade movie in the soft lens vision of the glowing afterlife.
Come on Redarmy, throw caution to the wind, live like there's no tomorrow, because there isn't. You die, that's it, you lived. You will live on in the memory of people who knew you and loved you, not as a soul, an angel or a prisoner of evil incarnate. That is SO preposterous, so unbelievable that any intelligent person with real cognitive and rational thoughts or abilities will denounce it as utter tripe( and rest easy in the comfortable knowledge that any Creator of the Universe and all who dwell within it as beings created in "his" image will have no spurious intentions for his sons and daughters, he would in fact regard his own atheist offspring as crazy little rebel rousters who showed some spunk and got a bit confused along the way.)

Really, Redarmy11, you see at having three choices, Stay agnostic, become a Christian( which, if everyone on sciforums who truly "believes" is anything to go by, sell your sense of humour to the...the...De..., no, not the devil, beesibub or Satan, but to the big chappie himself! Aaaarrrggghhh!!!! I implore you redarmy, don't do it, humour makes the world go around and your humour is sacred( I mean this wholeheartedly, Redarmy is one humourously gifted dude...rare humour welldone is like a stake in the heart of the Theist, bleeding and bloody. Well done humour is rare and Redarmy's humour is like a steak on the plate of the atheist, warm, moist and tasting of life!

Vital One nearly had it with the good samaritan reference, The priest was pathetic, the samaritan was beyond reproach, he cared and that was what mattered.

The whole thing about knowing God, feeling God, loving God and having God love you and living all the light, the way, the love, the good, the sweet, the lovely, the rainbows, puppydogs and ....stuff, is that it's only half the story.

Oh yeah! the pain, the suffering, the injustice etc.. and on (we all know that story)they are all part of living too and no amount of pretending( wanting to believe in the light, the way, the love and eternal sunshine and having God shining through you you like a prism) will actually spare you from the pain.
So Redarmy, believe as you do in the good, the bad and the ugly and have the strength to embrace it all as the bittersweet life it is.
Retain your wonderful cynicism, your wicked tangential slant on life.
There is no God. We are here. We can't explain why, we really don't need to. But please don't sell out to the " it's all too hard, scary, unexplainable etc." Stick with the "science" or not but don't say " it's nice and easy to believe in a magnanimous God"

And again, there lies the crux of the matter, if there's a God, He is magnanimous and a few swear words and having a healthy inquisitive and questioning mind will certainly not condemn you to an afterlife of pain.

If the theists are right, it does not necessarily follow that they can prove it to you. Belief should be based on experience, at least in part, despite whatever the monotheists say about faith.

Just keep in mind that your not having had certain experiences, interest, openness, acceptance or, for example, ability to stop the little verbal machine in your mind - has given you a certain way of perceiving things. That when theists come to you - with more words to add to all those running around in your brain - and this does not convince you is proof of nothing. It might indicate how clever you or they are or aren't with words and a lot of abstract mulling, but that has very little to do with how we learn things, especially fundamental things or things that challenge fundamentally how we experience and think.

And that applies to athiests also. Just because the athiests cannot convince you proves very little about the truth of their position.
I completely agree, which is why I think all the 'debates' that go on in this particular forum are so pointless and frustrating. A babble of competing realities. If the Truth isn't accessible to anyone outside your own head what value does it have?

Is lightgigantic right when he says that atheists just don't have the necessary tools to investigate God?
Is God any more or less real than gravity?

You make cryptic reference to "how we learn things" but don't explain the process. What is it, exactly, and how might I apply it to the question at hand? When I'm done will I finally be with (or without) God?

Questions, questions..

I completely agree, which is why I think all the 'debates' that go on in this particular forum are so pointless and frustrating. A babble of competing realities.

Discussing and debating can help to clarify things for oneself, often in indirect ways.

[QUOTE]I completely agree, which is why I think all the 'debates' that go on in this particular forum are so pointless and frustrating. A babble of competing realities.
I agree, in general. I think you can point out flaws in reasoning. Show an athiest or a theist that their proof was not a proof. You can also point out to athiests that they tend to focus their skepticism on certain things and not others and ask for some introspection about why this might be. But overall most of that seems pointless to me also. Unless there is an interest in exploring something - not just words about something and 'logic' about something - its all head and abstraction. No meat in the soup, or vegetables for that matter.



If the Truth isn't accessible to anyone outside your own head what value does it have?

Well, if it is true that there is a God (or that you can communicate with one) this certainly could have value even if you can't prove this to someone else. There are mundane examples of such things. If your grandfather had a stroke and hates everyone but you and pretends to not be able to speak except around you, well, you can still have valuable conversations with the guy even if no one believes you've had them.

Is lightgigantic right when he says that atheists just don't have the necessary tools to investigate God?
Is God any more or less real than gravity?

I think a lot of athiests have their own emotional reasons for not opening to the possibility. Not that I can prove this.

You make cryptic reference to "how we learn things" but don't explain the process. What is it, exactly, and how might I apply it to the question at hand?

'Cryptic' makes it sound exotic. I think it was just imcomplete. We learn best, I think, via experience and interaction. Most religions offer methods to get closer to God or whatever it is they try to get closer to. You could try some of these. I think most religions are pretty clear that this is not primarily an intellectual process. Nor is learning to be a good carpenter. Or really anything. We generally learn by doing. So if you are actually curious or have a desire to know you could in fact follow the doing and skip all the chitchat. It would be a shame if you became a monothieist, but I am willing to wager against that possiblity.

When I'm done will I finally be with (or without) God?



Oh, go find out yourself.

You're like a kid sitting in the house with his arms crossed asking his parents if he will make any friends if he goes to the playground.

We learn best, I think, via experience and interaction. Most religions offer methods to get closer to God or whatever it is they try to get closer to. You could try some of these. I think most religions are pretty clear that this is not primarily an intellectual process. Nor is learning to be a good carpenter. Or really anything. We generally learn by doing. So if you are actually curious or have a desire to know you could in fact follow the doing and skip all the chitchat.

Well, that's just it - If something is learned, then it's not "who you really are"; if it's learned, it's just something that has been acquired, it's not genuinely yours ("you" meant generally).

And while I don't see a problem with this in everyday terms, I find it very problematic when it comes to things like believing in God.

If I learn to believe in God, my first association to this is that I've basically made it up, trained myself into believing in God - while there might not be any God in the first place. And it's an association that I see no alternative to.

Atheists don't make a habit of converting others. Work it out yourself :p

I'm an agnostic as well as a recovering alcoholic/drug addict (20 years without a drink/drug) who got sober in AA. So I had regular exposure to people telling me I should believe in a higher power and I tried sincerely to do so for a couple years (praying on a regular basis, reading a variety of religous texts, etc.). I am enough of a pragmatist to see that believing in a religion (doesn't seem to matter which one) helps people stay sober (and helps them in other ways) but am also enough of a rationalist to realize this is not support for the validity of any one religous tradition. I don't hate religion--it can accomplish good things as well as bad-- but do dislike fundamentalism/fanaticism. I don't dislike atheism either though and have met some very moral and happy atheists.

I do, however, think it's important to believe in the value of something other than myself--for me that has become the human race in general so I'd say I'm a humanist.

Well, that's just it - If something is learned, then it's not "who you really are"; if it's learned, it's just something that has been acquired, it's not genuinely yours ("you" meant generally).

And while I don't see a problem with this in everyday terms, I find it very problematic when it comes to things like believing in God.

If I learn to believe in God, my first association to this is that I've basically made it up, trained myself into believing in God - while there might not be any God in the first place. And it's an association that I see no alternative to.

I still think this is backwards. Why not explore what you want to explore and see what happens? It's a little like Zeno deciding not to go for a walk because of his paradox. Who knows what you will learn?

Also, given your fears about learning, you are already in that position. Perhaps perceiving God or gods or Nirvana is what you have been trained out of noticing.

You are not in a pristine place - which I know you know but perhaps haven't quite thought of it in this way. Even agnosticism is a very solid, absolute set of beliefs about epistomology, perception, thought, and so on. It is a very strong position - as they all are. It is not quasi. It has consequences and for all you know, according to your own statements, your agnosticism is simply something you have been trained to think is yours.

I realize that you have moved away or are in a questioning relationship with a Christian background, but we are trained by much more than our parents.

Atheists don't make a habit of converting others. Work it out yourself :p

They don't?
That is not my experience. And mocking and shaming and belittling are a form of training.

Theists, atheists: you are all mad. :)

As I see it, there is no more compelling evidence for not believing in God than there is for believing.

In fact, I see no compelling reasons at all for adopting either stance.
What do I mean by compelling? Well, lets say strong enough evidence to convince a neutral like me.
excuse me if this has already been asked. But being that you think there's no compelling reasons at all for adopting either stance, it seem you think it is unreasonable to believe in a god without evidence. The only rational position, it seems to me, is to suspend judgement until such evidence emerges as to put the existence or non-existence of God (or gods) beyond any reasonable doubt. agreed, however considering there is no hard evidence, and you think it's unreasonable, why are you agnostic, I know you say, there’s no compelling evidence either way, but what evidence would you need, to convince you of nonexistence.
Certainly one can say that, given the lack of compelling evidence in favour, it's reasonable to infer that gods probably don't exist. But that still leaves room for doubt, no matter how small.yes the same doubt that elves can exist, or the same doubt that the lesser spotted Nupin bird from the planet Zogalog can exist. Can we fill that gap with anything other than faith, intuition, personal belief?no, faith and personal belief, fit that gap perfectly. But not intuition, as that doesn't indicate nonexistent supernatural elements, intuition is not fantasizing, intuition is using wisdom learnt, to help come to a logical conclusion. Doesn't that small element of doubt compel you to join me on the fence, awaiting further evidence, open to the possibility that everything you know is wrong? no, unless of course you wish to leave the door open for anything that can possibly be imagined. All have the same potential as Gods, Elves, or Nupin birds.It's the 'strong' atheists who interest me most in all of this: those who are 100% certain that no Gods exist. Identify yourselves, please, and justify your position.they interest me too, as there are no absolutes, however it isn't an wholly unreasonable stance considering the supreme lack of evidence for Gods, Elves, and Nupin birds from the planet Zogalog.

Hi,

I'm redarmy11 and I'm a cowardly, fence-sitting agnostic. I is feeling left out. :(

Theists: show me the Light and the Way.
Atheists: convert me to the Dark Side.

Go.

P. S. You are all mad. :)Agnostics who don't believe in a god ARE atheist - by definition.

In the absence of evidence, the only rational position is one of agnostic atheism.

Of course, this is dependent upon what you consider evidence.

But until I see any, feel any, hear, taste any etc... I retain rationality on my side as I head into battle, sitting astride my trusty War-cat, over-sized sword/lightning-conductor in hand, trusty comedic side-kick to one side and an array of glittering allies to suit all tastes.

BY THE POWER OF SARCASM....!!

:D

They don't?
That is not my experience. And mocking and shaming and belittling are a form of training.

No, they don't. Not a single one I know in real life anyway, and I know a lot of them.
Atheists usually have no opinion on theists until you make them think about it. And even then most of them have no problem with religious people whatsoever, let alone wanting to convert them.
I belief atheists that are out to 'convert' theists are the equivalent of religious extremists or football hooligans for that matter. I think you get the idea :)

I agree with this. The distinction seems really fuzzy to me. Would someone like to clarify?

Sure. The current definition of an Agnostic is a "person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable". In other words, the agnostic position goes beyond "I don't know" and positively claims "Nobody can ever know". Agnostics also tend to value other people's feelings to the point that they will not scrutinize their beliefs and will go out of their way to appease such people.

A weak Atheist on the other hand holds no such "unknowable", "anti-scrutiny", and "appeasing" positions. Normally the weak Atheist is all about evidence.

There's no such thing as a weak atheist, weak atheists are really just agnostics they just want to claim atheism

As you can see from my post above, this is not the case.

I still think this is backwards. Why not explore what you want to explore and see what happens?

And if it should be wrong, and God will smite me, either now or some time later? I seem to be unable to shake that fear.

I'm actually on mandatory rest now from my sports exercises, because I overdid it and my legs hurt badly. For the recent couple of months, I was often overwhelmed by thoughts of God, tensed up a lot, and it affected my exercising, especially the running. Running while psychologically tense is very bad for muscles, joints and bones, at least for me.
Now, I'm not saying that this is God smiting me. But I'm saying that the situation is serious.


It has consequences and for all you know, according to your own statements, your agnosticism is simply something you have been trained to think is yours.

I wouldn't say I think it is mine. What I consider as mine is my not having a way to leave agnosticism behind.


I realize that you have moved away or are in a questioning relationship with a Christian background, but we are trained by much more than our parents.

Of course, the conditioning is very complex.

... who got sober in AA. So I had regular exposure to people telling me I should believe in a higher power and I tried sincerely to do so for a couple years (praying on a regular basis, reading a variety of religous texts, etc.).

I was briefly involved with a 12-step program, but gave it up because it was too much like literally banging my head up against a wall.
Everytime I prayed to that "Higher Power" I couldn't shake the feeling that it's all just my imagination, or talking to a deaf wall.

I don't understand how anyone can recover while relying on a "Higher Power". For me, it only made things worse.

seriously, do we really want his soul? I say let the theists have it.

Sure. The current definition of an Agnostic is a "person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable". In other words, the agnostic position goes beyond "I don't know" and positively claims "Nobody can ever know". Agnostics also tend to value other people's feelings to the point that they will not scrutinize their beliefs and will go out of their way to appease such people.

A weak Atheist on the other hand holds no such "unknowable", "anti-scrutiny", and "appeasing" positions. Normally the weak Atheist is all about evidence.I don't agree.
I agree with the Agnostic element - to a degree - but an agnostic can merely be one who personally doesn't have the evidence on which to make a judgement.

And a weak atheist is merely one who neither believes in the existence of god, nor disbelieves in it either.

I, like many others here, am generally an agnostic atheist (weak).
I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God, precisely because I do not think anyone can ever know what is beyond the realms of evidence / our universe - and I personally do not have evidence to the contrary.

are there more reliable ways of finding out for sure?
Yes, but it involves some risk...are you up for it?

You will have to experience death for yourself...no pulse or brain wave activity, and then be brought back to life. This happens rather often nowadays thanks to medical technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsV2oWL0bK0

You could set up a special clinic with your life savings. The doctors will administer general anesthetic, you will become unconscious and then your breathing will be stopped.

Care will be taken to monitor brain activity, and when it is certain you are flatlining, artificial respiration will be started immediately.

You will return to consciousness with a first hand knowledge of the afterlife....or, you wont return at all.

I told you about the risk part didnt I...:cool:

I was briefly involved with a 12-step program, but gave it up because it was too much like literally banging my head up against a wall.
Everytime I prayed to that "Higher Power" I couldn't shake the feeling that it's all just my imagination, or talking to a deaf wall.

I don't understand how anyone can recover while relying on a "Higher Power". For me, it only made things worse.

It certainly doesn't work for everyone but it does work for a lot of people (about as well as formal treatment). I do tend to think that social connection is a much more important facet of it, however, than the "higher power."

Most drug addicts/alchoholics are incredibly selfish people and also feel pretty hopeless so they need something that can serve to combat that selfishness and give them a sense of hope--for many that's a connection to other people but for others it is a connection to a belief system that puts their individual ego in a greater context.

Also, people who are addicts tend to come up with beliefs like drugs make their lives better--perhaps it's not true that a belief in a higher power makes their life better but it's certainly a less destructive belief.

I, like many others here, am generally an agnostic atheist (weak).
I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God, precisely because I do not think anyone can ever know what is beyond the realms of evidence / our universe - and I personally do not have evidence to the contrary.

That's my feeling exactly. And I think that if God really wants me to believe he would give me evidence to change my view (a personal revelation). So if he/she/it can't be bothered then why should I?

You will return to consciousness with a first hand knowledge of the afterlife....or, you wont return at all.

The fallacy you present is one of false dichotomy. Another possibility is that the patient who was "temporarily dead" returns to consciousness with first hand knowledge of how the brain deals with failed consciousness. Neuroscientists have reproduced each of the effects that are reported by those that have near-death experiences: perceptions of being "out-of-body;" tunnels & white lights; and even spiritual "feelings." -all without actually inducing death.

Therefore, it is obviously possible that near-death experiencers that have anecdotes of an "afterlife" are deluded by physiological/neurological processes in the brain and body. They merely apply cultural expectations to a new and unknown experience. And, since no evidence is present to support the superstitious claims of "afterlife," the delusion hypothesis is therefore probable.

I don't agree.
I agree with the Agnostic element - to a degree - but an agnostic can merely be one who personally doesn't have the evidence on which to make a judgement.

And a weak atheist is merely one who neither believes in the existence of god, nor disbelieves in it either.

I, like many others here, am generally an agnostic atheist (weak).
I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God, precisely because I do not think anyone can ever know what is beyond the realms of evidence / our universe - and I personally do not have evidence to the contrary.

I am not sure what the disagreement part is about :). Maybe I missed a subtlety?

Sure. The current definition of an Agnostic is a "person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable". In other words, the agnostic position goes beyond "I don't know" and positively claims "Nobody can ever know". Agnostics also tend to value other people's feelings to the point that they will not scrutinize their beliefs and will go out of their way to appease such people.

A weak Atheist on the other hand holds no such "unknowable", "anti-scrutiny", and "appeasing" positions. Normally the weak Atheist is all about evidence.

No, there's no such thing, anyone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God is best described as an agnostic, not as a weak atheist or weak theist, though someone wanting to claim atheism or theism can use those

Your definition of agnosticism is strong agnosticism, those who make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God are agnostic, an agnostic does not necessarily claim to not be able to EVER know, just that they do not know. Its like someone saying all atheists are strong atheists (100% certain God does not exist), regular agnostics make no claims regarding the existence of God, and do not necessarily believe it is absolutely unknowable

Another possibility is that the patient who was "temporarily dead" returns to consciousness with first hand knowledge of how the brain deals with failed consciousness.

Well there is no 'knowledge' attained through unconsciousness, which is very common. People black out and return with nothing to report, not even a dream.

According to the strictly materialistic view a total cessation of all brain activity would be equally empty of any and all reportage.

Neuroscientists have reproduced each of the effects that are reported by those that have near-death experiences: perceptions of being "out-of-body;" tunnels & white lights; and even spiritual "feelings."...all without actually inducing death.
Not with the same lucid definition and detail. Additionally, people who have actually died can often comment on what was happening in the waking world while they were dead.

So Red, have you decided yet ?

No, there's no such thing, anyone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God is best described as an agnostic, not as a weak atheist or weak theist, though someone wanting to claim atheism or theism can use those

Your definition of agnosticism is strong agnosticism, those who make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God are agnostic, an agnostic does not necessarily claim to not be able to EVER know, just that they do not know. Its like someone saying all atheists are strong atheists (100% certain God does not exist), regular agnostics make no claims regarding the existence of God, and do not necessarily believe it is absolutely unknowable

From your description, strong agnosticism and weak atheism appear to be one in the same. From ongoing debates and wiki's, it looks like that the delineation between the two becomes a matter of probability in the position.

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

"While agnosticism can be seen as a form of weak atheism,[35] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism, or requires an equal conviction.[36] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[37] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[38] and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[39] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[40] Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".[41]"

Not with the same lucid definition and detail. Additionally, people who have actually died can often comment on what was happening in the waking world while they were dead.

In addition; there are just too many commanalities in peoples' experiences despite their accounts being somewhat different in detail.
Some of those common points being told or shown in their experiences the following that I've gathered from a few sources:


*We are all smaller bits of the greater whole (God).

*Only in the physical world can evil and good mingle. In the afterlife they gravitate to various levels or 'spheres" that accomodate their spiritual vibration (Hi or low).

*The are various levels in the afterlife ranging from the earthly plane to the highest level. (10)

*In the physical world we lose our "identity" of being part of God and the challenge is to realize it.

*God created the universe to explore itself thru the immense mutiplicity of creation.

Those were just a few that people from a variety of backrounds and cultures,non-religous believers and believers alike have claimed in their accounts.

wow aren't people dreamers.

Why would you need other people to tell you what to believe?

From your description, strong agnosticism and weak atheism appear to be one in the same. From ongoing debates and wiki's, it looks like that the delineation between the two becomes a matter of probability in the position.

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

"While agnosticism can be seen as a form of weak atheism,[35] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism, or requires an equal conviction.[36] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[37] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[38] and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[39] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[40] Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".[41]"

Right, so it supports my stance, weak atheists are just agnostics who want to claim atheism, where as those who claim agnosticism do not want to claim either atheism nor theism

Also, not strong agnosticism, just regular agnosticism

Wow. I'd need to respond to this thread 24 hours a day in order to keep up with the fascinating points you all raise. I can't possibly respond to them all so forgive me for that. Since this one was addressed to me directly:
excuse me if this has already been asked. But being that you think there's no compelling reasons at all for adopting either stance, it seem you think it is unreasonable to believe in a god without evidence.
Correct. Every bit as unreasonable as believing in one. Amusing to see the lofty rejections of theism issued from this house built on sand.
agreed, however considering there is no hard evidence, and you think it's unreasonable, why are you agnostic, I know you say, there’s no compelling evidence either way, but what evidence would you need, to convince you of nonexistence.
I'm agnostic because I have to be something if I'm to address the issue at all. I've no idea what evidence would convince me of nonexistence. I can't even imagine what form that evidence would take. I'd be really interested to hear from anyone who's had that kind of epiphany.
yes the same doubt that elves can exist, or the same doubt that the lesser spotted Nupin bird from the planet Zogalog can exist.
Fascinating. You reject the possibility of life on other planets? I don't. It occupies a much higher position in my belief hierarchy than the possibility of Gods - and yet I can't see any rational reason why one should seem so much more possible (more plausible) than the other. As VO rightly points out lack of plausibility isn't sufficient reason in itself for rejecting an idea. I want someone to help me here and give me some tools that I can use to validate things that are beyond the limits of my knowledge and experience.
no, faith and personal belief, fit that gap perfectly. But not intuition, as that doesn't indicate nonexistent supernatural elements, intuition is not fantasizing, intuition is using wisdom learnt, to help come to a logical conclusion.
Intuition is just a best guess based on gut instinct, probably derived from experience. Intuition can be right or wrong. There may be nothing magical about it but there's nothing scientific about it either. The science begins when you take that intuition and use it to formulate a testable hypothesis about what you believe. As that's all it is when you strip away the bells and whistles: a belief that requires further investigation.
no, unless of course you wish to leave the door open for anything that can possibly be imagined. All have the same potential as Gods, Elves, or Nupin birds.
Correct. What tools can we use to assign levels of plausibility to each of these?

Why would you need other people to tell you what to believe?
Are you asking me?

I should say again that the question is entirely rhetorical. I want to deconstruct what people believe or don't believe to see if there's anything but air inside.

Right, so it supports my stance, weak atheists are just agnostics who want to claim atheism, where as those who claim agnosticism do not want to claim either atheism nor theism

Also, not strong agnosticism, just regular agnosticism

I disagree. I see near-identity between what you described as strong agnosticism and existing definitions of weak atheism; however, the wiki article I posted shows the distinction being a position on probability.

Regular agnosticism includes the positive claim that in addition to not knowing, the answer can never be known.

Are you asking me?

I should say again that the question is entirely rhetorical. I want to deconstruct what people believe or don't believe to see if there's anything but air inside.

Who else? :)

I think belief (in anything) is a very personal matter; I've believed in friends no one else would give the time of day to; I've believed in myself and in people I love. Its all air if you don't believe. There are a lot of beliefs out in the open (like love, hope, anarchy, self-control, entitlement, racism) and no matter what the evidence for or against, some people will/will not believe. Asking someone about your beliefs is asking them if you like a particular color. There are as many opinions as there are people.

well can i have a say
i believe the number 11 is a sign to only two dark angels by the muslims and they call them through destruction and when u read the bible is kinda true they will not attack again on the 11th cause they sent their sign and the dark angels bring very bad death and destruction egytians said the same thing on tuts tomb death comes swiftly on wings
ahmm well i think secrets were kept in the churches they rewrote everything so no one will know what the muslims can do with these angels and the bible says only two dark angesl exist hope u's havent hurt their dark angels givng them an excuse to destroy just hope and egytians say love is the strongest they loved the dark angels and the secret was buried with tut but statues were stolen from their and hidden in homes cause they feared this angel that takes them to the other place and they have found the statues in homes of rich people and they say it dont have any significance yet the gold was more important than these clay angel replicas tuts wall says b carefull death comes swiftly one wings ........but not my beleif .....all this is in abc dvd's the story of tuts tomb all that .....is kinda interesting

Hi,

I'm redarmy11 and I'm a cowardly, fence-sitting agnostic. I is feeling left out. :(

Theists: show me the Light and the Way.
Atheists: convert me to the Dark Side.

Go.

P. S. You are all mad. :)redarmy11, first off, being agnostic doesn't mean that you are not atheist or theist. I'm agnostic atheist. Secondly, I think it makes more sense to say I'm agnostic atheist OR I'm agnostic theist but not I'm an agnostic atheist OR I'm an agnostic theist. Lastly, even theists are atheist for many many many many Gods and Goddesses and Buddhas.

I hadn't seen this post was so long. I'm using the word agnostic as the meaning can not logically prove gods and goddesses and buddhas do not exist and atheism as lacking a beleif in those ideas and theism a haveing a beleif one or more of those ideas.

I disagree. I see near-identity between what you described as strong agnosticism and existing definitions of weak atheism; however, the wiki article I posted shows the distinction being a position on probability.

Regular agnosticism includes the positive claim that in addition to not knowing, the answer can never be known.

No it doesn't, regular agnosticism claims that you don't know whether or not God eixsts, but that it could possibly be known

"AGNOSTIC Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists."

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml

Mild agnosticism (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Who else? :)

I think belief (in anything) is a very personal matter; I've believed in friends no one else would give the time of day to; I've believed in myself and in people I love. Its all air if you don't believe. There are a lot of beliefs out in the open (like love, hope, anarchy, self-control, entitlement, racism) and no matter what the evidence for or against, some people will/will not believe. Asking someone about your beliefs is asking them if you like a particular color. There are as many opinions as there are people.
Theistic beliefs aren't the same as 'believing' in a friend. They're more akin to believing whether a friend exists, yes? We can rely on our senses for that of, course. They're infallible. :p

The trouble is I just don't know how to begin gathering the evidence I need in order to validate or invalidate my beliefs about God.

Tools and methodology?

Theistic beliefs aren't the same as 'believing' in a friend. They're more akin to believing whether a friend exists, yes? We can rely on our senses for that of, course. They're infallible. :p

The trouble is I just don't know how to begin gathering the evidence I need in order to validate or invalidate my beliefs about God.

Tools and methodology?

What would convince you? Its a belief, you don't have to accept it if its not convincing to you.

Personally, I believe because it makes the most sense to me. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, etc.

What would convince you?
Proof one way or the other before I declare a belief in either.
Personally, I believe because it makes the most sense to me. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, etc.
Don't make me swear or Skin will infract me.

You are a woman of Faith and a woman of Science. For fuck's sake, I thought you of all people would know.

Either shut up or do much, much better.

Proof one way or the other before I declare a belief in either.

Don't make me swear or Skin will infract me.

You are a woman of Faith and a woman of Science. For fuck's sake, I thought you of all people would know.

Either shut up or do much, much better.

If I knew, it would not be belief. :p

Lets just say it makes no sense to me that everything is a random occurrence, when everything is under such precise control.

Only we are so used to the everyday-ness of the control, we never question it.

If I knew, it would not be belief. :p

Lets just say it makes no sense to me that everything is a random occurrence, when everything is under such precise control.

Only we are so used to the everyday-ness of the control, we never question it.
Please do not troll.

On what - bold, italic and underlined - do you base the belief (other than your incredulous, hallucinatory perceptions re. precision, randomness and our ability to understand them)?
I hadn't seen this post was so long. I'm using the word agnostic as the meaning can not logically prove gods and goddesses and buddhas do not exist and atheism as lacking a beleif in those ideas and theism a haveing a beleif one or more of those ideas.
Hi Michael. I can't claim to avidly devour all your posts but, whenever I've happened across you on Sciforums, I've been impressed by the breadth and depth of your learning on religious matters.

When you say lack of belief I take it you mean 'lack of positive belief'.

Do you think it's possible to sustain the position that 'Gods do not exist'? If so, how?
Do you think it's possible to sustain the position that 'Gods probably do not exist'? If so - and this is one of the key questions for me, I think - on what can we base that assessment? How valid are the conclusions we're drawing in order to arrive at that position?

Hi Michael. I can't claim to avidly devour all your posts but, whenever I've happened across you on Sciforums, I've been impressed by the breadth and depth of your learning on religious matters.Well thanks :)

When you say lack of belief I take it you mean 'lack of positive belief'.yes that's right.

Do you think it's possible to sustain the position that 'Gods do not exist'? If so, how? I have never read an argument a a priori or a posteriori that would be a definitive proof that Gods do not exist. So I'll have to say no.

I think that main arguments fall into the following catagories:
Ontological
Cosmological
Argument from Design
Argument from Miracles
Moral
Pragmatic

Do you think it's possible to sustain the position that 'Gods probably do not exist'? If so - and this is one of the key questions for me, I think - on what can we base that assessment? How valid are the conclusions we're drawing in order to arrive at that position?Yes, I think to say Gods probably do not exist is an acceptable position to take.

There is no evidence that Gods exist and there is also no reason needed to invoke the existence of Gods to explain reality so it's probably true that they do not exist.

The question really is: Why does the Gods meme exit?


Michael

Hi,

I'm redarmy11 and I'm a cowardly, fence-sitting agnostic. I is feeling left out. :(

Theists: show me the Light and the Way.
Atheists: convert me to the Dark Side.

Go.

P. S. You are all mad. :)

Sorry, can't get mad. I feel the same way about me.

I am not sure what the disagreement part is about :). Maybe I missed a subtlety?My mistake - apologies - I read into your description an implication that agnosticism and atheism couldn't cohabit, so to speak. I am not someone who holds them (atheism and agnosticism) to be positions on the same axis (a la Dawkins and his probability), but on two axis..es. One for belief in / belief not / non-belief, and one for the evidential side of the question (does it exist, is it knowable etc).
Hence I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.

Every bit as unreasonable as believing in one. I think you meant " not believing in one" then I ask why.
I'm agnostic because I have to be something if I'm to address the issue at all. I've no idea what evidence would convince me of nonexistence. I can't even imagine what form that evidence would take. I'd be really interested to hear from anyone who's had that kind of epiphany.exactly, if you cant imagine it why, would you consider it an option.
surely evidence means exist, no evidence means?
Fascinating. You reject the possibility of life on other planets?sorry never said that what I did was show that something from my imagination[ Nupin bird) has equal merit to a god/gods.I don't. It occupies a much higher position in my belief hierarchy than the possibility of Godsme too. - and yet I can't see any rational reason why one should seem so much more possible (more plausible) than the other. then your beyond help. given the diversity of live on this one planet, and the countless billions of worlds out there that can support life as we know it. it is infantile to not think there is at least one other planet, but when your talking about a magic being that watches over us, well thats just stepping into the realms of fantasy, and purely infantile. As VO rightly points out lack of plausibility isn't sufficient reason in itself for rejecting an idea. I want someone to help me here and give me some tools that I can use to validate things that are beyond the limits of my knowledge and experience.would you say that, your right arm could ungrow IE start to reverse it's growth, back to that of a foetus. it's possible/plausible, but it's extremely unlikely, but this isn't sufficient reason in itself for rejecting the idea.
however infantile that sounds, it has equal merit to a god existing.
Intuition is just a best guess based on gut instinct, probably derived from experience. Intuition can be right or wrong. I think you need to look up the word, so I'll leave it there, as I dont want to insult your intelligence. Correct. What tools can we use to assign levels of plausibility to each of these?common sense, this is the only tool you need.
can your arms ungrow?.

No, they don't. Not a single one I know in real life anyway, and I know a lot of them.
Atheists usually have no opinion on theists until you make them think about it. And even then most of them have no problem with religious people whatsoever, let alone wanting to convert them.
I belief atheists that are out to 'convert' theists are the equivalent of religious extremists or football hooligans for that matter. I think you get the idea :)

I guess I was reacting from online experience. I don't know who 'started it' but I find threads with a great deal of mockery and insults and condescension from the athiest side. Athiests I have known personally don't have the monotheist type interventions, but there is this 'open minded questioning' that starts up and can begin sounding like curiosity and usually ends up as a debate to disprove. Atheists I know are good people or I wouldn't hang out with them and there are many. So this is not filled with the mocking or sarcasm I find on the net. Not at all. But I certainly do feel like they are trying to erode my beliefs. Athiests tend to think of athiesm as a stance that refuses to have a specific belief. So conversion is not the same as between religions. Nevertheless if you try to erode a belief into not being there, and this would shift the other person's beliefs to looking a lot more like your own set of beliefs, well, I think conversion is a satisfactory metaphor, at least.

And look, most Christians could not be my friends. Hell, I am a pagan. On the other hand athiests and agnostics are quite happy to have me around. They see me as deluded, and they are surprised that my delusion does not seem to affect my intelligence or opinions about other areas of life, but they do not see me as evil. And that is just peachy.

I do think they just can't help themselves when it comes to occasional 'conversion' concersations.

[QUOTE]And if it should be wrong, and God will smite me, either now or some time later? I seem to be unable to shake that fear.

I think the best thing for me to say here is that if that is a God, it is not a loving God, it is not God the father, because fathers should not act like that, and I will stand up to that God whatever that means. If I cannot trust my basic gut sense of what love is, well, in the end that is God's fault, he made me. So he will have to live with the consequences of that.

If I cannot trust my gut sense about something so basic, why should I trust some voice in my head that tells me I am evil. YOu see what I mean.

And by the way, I really doubt you will somehow go, Yeah, dat guy is right. And leap out bed and not be bothered by this dilemma.

I'm actually on mandatory rest now from my sports exercises, because I overdid it and my legs hurt badly. For the recent couple of months, I was often overwhelmed by thoughts of God, tensed up a lot, and it affected my exercising, especially the running. Running while psychologically tense is very bad for muscles, joints and bones, at least for me.
Now, I'm not saying that this is God smiting me. But I'm saying that the situation is serious.

It is amazing how much treating ourselves as shit is embedded in so much of what passes for the word of God. (or the Buddha or Vishnu and so on)




I wouldn't say I think it is mine. What I consider as mine is my not having a way to leave agnosticism behind.

And there is a set of thoughts holding that in place and there is terror that makes it seem like survival loss if you stop believing those thoughts. I am not sure what the distinction you are making here. It is almost like saying you don't believe in agnosticism, but it is the island you swam to not to drown. Whatever the case you are left with a set of thoughts about reality and what can be known and what is safe and what is loving and good and so on. I realize it is a mishmosh of various paradigms. You are afraid if you had other thoughts in your head - and god forbid actually felt good about yourself - you would soon find your head on the chopping block. This is the result of conditioning.

My point was primarily that you look at what might end up being your belief and say what if that is just conditioning. Well, you are already conditioned. If you really have no mechanism for knowing what is you and yours you would not be in the predicament you are in. You are in that predicament because your gut tells you that Christianity, at least as it has been around you, is not what you want. It took unraveling of conditioning to get you where you are. Your problem is that you can feel the difference, but you are not sure if this makes you evil. If being yourself is evil.

Who made you Greenberg?
You said the only things you are sure of are around your body?
Why would God have given you a body that you are sure of only to tell you that its urges and emotions are evil?
How did he expect you to make decisions, to decide whether his voice was his voice or Satan's?
With your thoughts?
That's a joke
Thoughts are the most conditioned things. We have had thoughts jammed in our heads from the moment we are born.
And thoughts for an against on any issue look just the same on the page.
We can only make decisions based on how those thoughts feel.

I guess I was reacting from online experience. I don't know who 'started it' but I find threads with a great deal of mockery and insults and condescension from the athiest side. Athiests I have known personally don't have the monotheist type interventions, but there is this 'open minded questioning' that starts up and can begin sounding like curiosity and usually ends up as a debate to disprove. Atheists I know are good people or I wouldn't hang out with them and there are many. So this is not filled with the mocking or sarcasm I find on the net. Not at all. But I certainly do feel like they are trying to erode my beliefs. Athiests tend to think of athiesm as a stance that refuses to have a specific belief. So conversion is not the same as between religions. Nevertheless if you try to erode a belief into not being there, and this would shift the other person's beliefs to looking a lot more like your own set of beliefs, well, I think conversion is a satisfactory metaphor, at least.

And look, most Christians could not be my friends. Hell, I am a pagan. On the other hand athiests and agnostics are quite happy to have me around. They see me as deluded, and they are surprised that my delusion does not seem to affect my intelligence or opinions about other areas of life, but they do not see me as evil. And that is just peachy.

I do think they just can't help themselves when it comes to occasional 'conversion' concersations.

I don't think they are purposely out to erode your beliefs. I think it's more like surprise at how you can belief in certain things, they want to know why you can and do belief that.
So it's mainly genuine interest and surprise. But more often than not theists take atheists inquiries as insults or mockery and react bitchy. That's when things can get nasty.

If I knew, it would not be belief. :p

Lets just say it makes no sense to me that everything is a random occurrence, when everything is under such precise control.

Only we are so used to the everyday-ness of the control, we never question it.

So, which is reality, randomly occurring or precisely controlled? You obviously can't have both.

Of course, the consequences of reality being precisely controlled are not in your favor to explain away without magic as your guide.

So, which is reality, randomly occurring or precisely controlled? You obviously can't have both.

Of course, the consequences of reality being precisely controlled are not in your favor to explain away without magic as your guide.

I'm talking about the boundaries within which we all must function, which includes the animate and inanimate. Not destiny.

Hi,

I'm redarmy11 and I'm a cowardly, fence-sitting agnostic. I is feeling left out. :(

Theists: show me the Light and the Way.
Atheists: convert me to the Dark Side.

Go.

P. S. You are all mad. :)

Do you believe in magic?

I'm talking about the boundaries within which we all must function, which includes the animate and inanimate. Not destiny.

See, I told you there's no way to explain it. :p

See, I told you there's no way to explain it. :p

Here's a few others that are just as unlikely to be explained:
self
identity
love
freedom
cause

I don't think they are purposely out to erode your beliefs. I think it's more like surprise at how you can belief in certain things, they want to know why you can and do belief that.
So it's mainly genuine interest and surprise. But more often than not theists take atheists inquiries as insults or mockery and react bitchy. That's when things can get nasty.

I don't think this latter descripton fits even the posts here at SCIF, but from my experience on a wide variety of forums your generalization does not fit. Athiests come out swinging just as much as thiests and on one website specifically designed for a dialogue between christians the christians tend to be much more polite.

I have sympathy for anger directed at the institution of the church and for people who never seem(ed) to notice all the problems with it, but I can only repeat it is not my experience that online atheists are curious and polite and only lash back.

As far as my friends I think you may be right about the first few seconds of the discussion, but it shifts into 'proving' my beliefs are irrational. I've gotten very much better at just hitting a tangent at that point, taking the conversation somewhere else.

Here's a few others that are just as unlikely to be explained:
self
identity
love
freedom
cause

Huh? What are you talking about? Why can't they be explained, or does that refer to you only?

Athiests come out swinging just as much as thiests and on one website specifically designed for a dialogue between christians the christians tend to be much more polite.

In regards to all of the Christians forums which I've been involved, they appear to be polite, but are merely stroking each others delusions. They usually ban the ass of atheists right out of there.

I have sympathy for anger directed at the institution of the church and for people who never seem(ed) to notice all the problems with it, but I can only repeat it is not my experience that online atheists are curious and polite and only lash back.

Religion is a disease spreading through the minds of people that has the capability to ultimately destroy mankind. "Curious and polite" should not be and usually are not characteristics when dealing with diseases.

but I can only repeat it is not my experience that online atheists are curious and polite and only lash back.


No they most definitely are not. They can be as evangelistic as any knock-on-a-door Jehovah's Witness.

Some of them even practise duplicity (or are deluded) about their own beliefs.

No they most definitely are not. They can be as evangelistic as any knock-on-a-door Jehovah's Witness.

If by 'evangelistic' you mean spreading education, I would agree.

Some of them even practise duplicity (or are deluded) about their own beliefs.

Agreed, sort of. From a theists point of view, which is entirely hypocritical, they cannot understand why atheists can't see their sky daddies. Of course, the hypocritical portion of their argument is that they can't see anyone else's sky daddy but their own.

So, what's the difference between a theist and an atheist. One less god?

Duplicity? You are the epitome of the deceiver.

I guess as a kafir, I cannot expect you to understand :shrug:

I guess as a kafir, I cannot expect you to understand :shrug:

And you're not a kafir? Do you believe in ALL gods purported to exist?

ENMOS,

I notice a shift in the tone of the debate coming from what seems to be an athiest.


Religion is a disease spreading through the minds of people that has the capability to ultimately destroy mankind. "Curious and polite" should not be and usually are not characteristics when dealing with diseases.


Huh, what are you talking about? Why can't they be explained? Or is that referring just to you?

My emphasis. I think it is clear what he is implying.

Huh? What are you talking about? Why can't they be explained, or does that refer to you only?

OK. Take the first example: Self.
I think the thread should be in philosophy. I will come and see how well you do.

And you're not a kafir? Do you believe in ALL gods purported to exist?

If I call water paani does it change?:shrug:

I believe that all ideas about God are with regard to the same God.

What we see as differences between ideas are just differences in viewpoints about God.

But as a kafir, I understand that notion is also beyond you.

ENMOS,

I notice a shift in the tone of the debate coming from what seems to be an athiest.

My emphasis. I think it is clear what he is implying.

The use of labels is a very effective way of dehumanisation and degradation. It is a weapon used by people in power to justify oppression.

Its called framing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

I don't think this latter descripton fits even the posts here at SCIF, but from my experience on a wide variety of forums your generalization does not fit. Athiests come out swinging just as much as thiests and on one website specifically designed for a dialogue between christians the christians tend to be much more polite.

I have sympathy for anger directed at the institution of the church and for people who never seem(ed) to notice all the problems with it, but I can only repeat it is not my experience that online atheists are curious and polite and only lash back.

As far as my friends I think you may be right about the first few seconds of the discussion, but it shifts into 'proving' my beliefs are irrational. I've gotten very much better at just hitting a tangent at that point, taking the conversation somewhere else.

I can only talk from my own experience. And that does not include my experiences online, only real life experiences.

Your beliefs are irrational to an atheist, but the 'disproving' as you see it arises from curiosity not from hostility.
Again, I can only speak from my on experiences.

The use of labels is a very effective way of dehumanisation and degradation. It is a weapon used by people in power to justify oppression.

Its called framing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

Well, it is the first time I have had someone tell me that I am diseased because of my beliefs. And while you and I suffer from different strains of the disease - or are they completely different diseases - perhaps we will end up in the same quarantine.

Had any interesting symptoms recently?

I can only talk from my own experience. And that does not include my experiences online, only real life experiences.

Your beliefs are irrational to an atheist, but the 'disproving' as you see it arises from curiosity not from hostility.
Again, I can only speak from my on experiences.

OK.

ENMOS,

I notice a shift in the tone of the debate coming from what seems to be an athiest.

My emphasis. I think it is clear what he is implying.

Yes, but people behave differently online it seems. I rather build my experiences from real life. For all I know he's saying it like that to annoy you.. :shrug:

Well, it is the first time I have had someone tell me that I am diseased because of my beliefs. And while you and I suffer from different strains of the disease - or are they completely different diseases - perhaps we will end up in the same quarantine.

Had any interesting symptoms recently?

Just BAMing (bitch and moan). You?

For all I know he's saying it like that to annoy you.. :shrug:

You are correct about that, he has a vicious streak and carefully picks and chooses words intended to denigrate. But does that make him less culpable or more?

Just BAMing (bitch and moan). You?
Well, to really drag out the metaphor, I have to admit that my fever is very mild recently and I have had few fever-induced hallucinations recently. I find the disease is cyclic, chronic and incurable.

You are correct about that, he has a vicious streak and carefully picks and chooses words intended to denigrate. But does that make him less culpable or more?

Well I am certainly not saying that all atheists are the way I described them. But by far the majority of atheists I know are like that, including myself.
Of course there are always people that are just waiting for an opportunity to stomp on people that are different, among them many atheists no doubt. I can only guess to what they imagine to achieve with that.
On the other hand, certain aggressive behavior can also be caused by frustration and experience with certain individuals.. It's always wrong to generalize but atheists are people too ;)

Well I am certainly not saying that all atheists are the way I described them. But by far the majority of atheists I know are like that, including myself.
Of course there are always people that are just waiting for an opportunity to stomp on people that are different, among them many atheists no doubt. I can only guess to what they imagine to achieve with that.
On the other hand, certain aggressive behavior can also be caused by frustration and experience with certain individuals.. It's always wrong to generalize but atheists are people too ;)

The frustration and experience arising from an ability to demonstrate to them why the atheists are right, I suppose?:rolleyes:

Leading to drastic measures such as these?



Religion is a disease spreading through the minds of people that has the capability to ultimately destroy mankind. "Curious and polite" should not be and usually are not characteristics when dealing with diseases.

The frustration and experience arising from an ability to demonstrate to them why the atheists are right, I suppose?:rolleyes:

Leading to drastic measures such as these?

Well maybe..
I wasn't about to say names but have you ever tried discussion something with VitalOne ? After meeting a few of those kind of people one might be misguided to believe the majority of theists are like that.

Well maybe..
I wasn't about to say names but have you ever tried discussion something with VitalOne ? After meeting a few of those kind of people one might be misguided to believe the majority of theists are like that.

When I hear complaints about religious evangelism from atheists I always look at their persistence in "educating" some of the theists and wonder why they complain.

When I hear complaints about religious evangelism from atheists I always look at their persistence in "educating" some of the theists and wonder why they complain.

You've got me there.
All I can say is that some atheists on here are totally different form the ones I know in real life. Some seem to be about atheism, which is, to me, against the concept of atheism in the first place.

You've got me there.
All I can say is that some atheists on here are totally different form the ones I know in real life. Some seem to be about atheism, which is, to me, against the concept of atheism in the first place.

See? I have no problem having a discussion on beliefs with you. There are kooks on every side, stepping over everyone for the invisible future greater good. Unfortunately, they are too busy f*cking up the present to ever get there.

i like you guys :)

and I'm sober

Do you believe in magic?
Let's say that I intuitively reject the possibility.

And this is what I'm struggling with: intuitive rejection backed up by... nothing at all. It's not satisfactory. Fill in the gaps.

redarmy, read the new dawkings book :)

We battle for ownership of others thoughts, we should be sooooo proud of ourselves. I won, i won, look at me i washed a brain.

And this is what I'm struggling with: intuitive rejection backed up by... nothing at all. It's not satisfactory. Fill in the gaps.

I hope that there are more options possible in this Universe than just either "reject" or "accept".

I hope there is some other option.

I'm confused as to what the Third Way might be.. ?

An afterlife with no God?

Will there be Smarties?

[Yes, I'm spamming my own thread!]

My mistake - apologies - I read into your description an implication that agnosticism and atheism couldn't cohabit, so to speak. I am not someone who holds them (atheism and agnosticism) to be positions on the same axis (a la Dawkins and his probability), but on two axis..es. One for belief in / belief not / non-belief, and one for the evidential side of the question (does it exist, is it knowable etc).
Hence I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.

cool :)

God? yeah someone who is smarter than us\YOU...GOD FORBID.:rolleyes:

Well tell him i am on his side and will bang everyone on the head to show it.... That god is just so intellectual because that would surely be important..oh, sure.

When I hear complaints about religious evangelism from atheists I always look at their persistence in "educating" some of the theists and wonder why they complain.

this is tatamount to allowing an educational system that differs and is in conflict, run alongside another, already established one

exploiting and deepening the fissures in sciety is rather reprehensible. should we not be putting the"social" back in society?

but
sci and all that
the nitty gritty, so to speak...... what specifically are you comparing? on what basis do you do so?

No it doesn't, regular agnosticism claims that you don't know whether or not God eixsts, but that it could possibly be known

"AGNOSTIC Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists."

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml

Mild agnosticism (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Looking back, I made an error in my assertion that "From your description, strong agnosticism and weak atheism appear to be one in the same" as any type of atheist makes no claim as to the non-knowability of a 'God'. The article you posted separates the agnostic positions even further and I found no equivalent to weak atheism.

The two fundamental differences between atheism and agnosticism are:

A) Agnosticism doesn't exclusively focus on 'God' and atheism does.
B) Weak and moderate atheism positively claim that the probability of a 'God' life-form existing is immensly small (strong atheism of course gives it zero probability); whereas, agnosticism issues no such claim of tiny probability.

Those differences are pretty big and offer a reasonable dilenation between the closest atheist and agnostic positions.

this is tatamount to allowing an educational system that differs and is in conflict, run alongside another, already established one

exploiting and deepening the fissures in sciety is rather reprehensible. should we not be putting the"social" back in society?

but
sci and all that
the nitty gritty, so to speak...... what specifically are you comparing? on what basis do you do so?


Assuming that atheism is an "educational system"? What does this classify as? Re-education?


Religion is a disease spreading through the minds of people that has the capability to ultimately destroy mankind. "Curious and polite" should not be and usually are not characteristics when dealing with diseases.

redarmy, read the new dawkings book :)
I should, shouldn't I. I'm just not prepared to pay eBay sellers' exorbitant prices though. :mad:

(I expect I'll get round to it. £0.01 start.)

I'm confused as to what the Third Way might be.. ?

I don't know yet. But if the only two options are either reject or accept, then things seem completely hopeless to me.

As you've noticed, it's impossible to either accept or reject theist and atheist claims without thereby compromising your integrity.

If you accept a claim, however reasonable it might seem to accept it, there's always at least some room for doubt, always a gnawing thought that you have violated your own principles in doing so.

If you reject a claim, however reasonable it might seem to reject it, there's always at least some room for doubt, always a gnawing thought that you have violated your own principles in doing so.

So I'm wondering if there's a way to avoid this and to transcend it.

Why would you need other people to tell you what to believe?

Because what we usually consider to be our "self", is actually directly and indirectly made up of what other people have said about us or to us.
A self exists only in direct or indirect relation to others.

Hence we look for answers elsewhere.

See? I have no problem having a discussion on beliefs with you.

I know SAM :)


There are kooks on every side, stepping over everyone for the invisible future greater good. Unfortunately, they are too busy f*cking up the present to ever get there.
Yes there are 'kooks' on every side, as I've said before.
I rarely attack atheism in general. I may have done so occasionally though and that was, admittedly, childish retribution towards a person (not theism).
I 'attack' VitalOne not because he is a theist, but because of his behavior. I think that's quite clear.

I don't know yet. But if the only two options are either reject or accept, then things seem completely hopeless to me.

As you've noticed, it's impossible to either accept or reject theist and atheist claims without thereby compromising your integrity.

If you accept a claim, however reasonable it might seem to accept it, there's always at least some room for doubt, always a gnawing thought that you have violated your own principles in doing so.

If you reject a claim, however reasonable it might seem to reject it, there's always at least some room for doubt, always a gnawing thought that you have violated your own principles in doing so.

So I'm wondering if there's a way to avoid this and to transcend it.
Beautifully put. Let me know if you find any answers. Fellow wanderer.

I should add that I'm also wary of the admonition: "Keep an open mind - but not so open that your brain falls out."

I feel a strong obligation to assume a position. Oh, me. :(

Assuming that atheism is an "educational system"? What does this classify as? Re-education?


semantics. you profess ignorance of the implications of what you wish to advance? rather one dimensional, i think. with damning consequences if i may further add

oh
q aint got shit
allow me to warm up
i really do intend harm

I should, shouldn't I. I'm just not prepared to pay eBay sellers' exorbitant prices though. :mad:

(I expect I'll get round to it. £0.01 start.)

The first chapter for your edification

http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion