Do you believe in a god?

[Madwand1]

I'm a theist, agnostic, and atheist. I'm interested in all religions, and think that they all represent the truth in some fashion, though with inherent errors of transcription and understanding. I also agree with the religion of atheism, and wish that those who hold that position, like theists, would be more intellectually honest. The most elementary consequence of intellectual honesty is as Amused writes -- an admission of fallibility. And given that admission of fallibility, it falls upon you to tolerate that fallibility in others. Otherwise, you're just another hypocrite.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: CKent
You just said you're a deist? The "He who makes a decision is arrogant" argument is generally reserved for certain agnostic young boys who feel confident in their indecision. Certain godless astronomers who oddly ignore this thread...

Because you baited me in here I'm going to make a quick post but I really need to go to work. Read carefully and let's see if your feeble mind can grasp this concept - I have made a decision. I am an atheist. I am no more agnostic regarding god than I am regarding a magic teapot orbiting the sun. I hold the same level of agnosticism for both. I believe in neither. Do you understand this?

I understand perfectly. Unfortunately for you, you've made absolutely no progress in your effort to say agnisticism and atheism are the same thing.

I am 100% done arguing against your strawman attacks. Find someone else willing to spend a few hours bashing their head against a brick wall, you are just clueless.

Every post of yours is bashing its head against a brick wall. You still haven't made any progress in your argument.

It's no wonder you're so fucked up, you simultaneously claim near-atheism and claim atheism is arrogant to the point of impossibility, arrogantly I might add (but say nothing of its opposite, religion, because as I said there are more of them and that must scare you). Classic case of hypocrisy induced self-hatred.

Now if I took it a step further I'd stereotype all kiwis based on you, but I'll be the bigger man here (in many ways) and stop short of imitating you to THAT extent :laugh:

I'm absolutely astounded that you just don't get this. Let me make it simple. I categorically don't believe in god. You claim to be an atheist. I would contend that the only major difference between your beliefs regarding god and mine is that I accept, on a philosophical level, the logical imperative that it's impossible to prove a negative. That's it. If you can't understand this then you're a lost cause.

 

[sao123]

yes.

 

[Nik]

Do I believe in the capacity for a superior being or supreme being to exist? Yes, because I can't disprove it.

However, do I believe in any of the gods that any religion offers? Hell no.

 

[FlashG]

God = Yup
All the other shit that gets tacked on = Nope

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: Nik
Do I believe in the capacity for a superior being or supreme being to exist? Yes, because I can't disprove it.

However, do I believe in any of the gods that any religion offers? Hell no.

If you could make your own God, what would he be like?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: rudeguy

Originally posted by: Nik
Do I believe in the capacity for a superior being or supreme being to exist? Yes, because I can't disprove it.

However, do I believe in any of the gods that any religion offers? Hell no.

If you could make your own God, what would he be like?

Like me, of course. He'd hate all the same people.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: Amused
[

Like me, of course. He'd hate all the same people.

Its actually a really good question. Its one that changed my life.

 

[pcslookout]

No

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Amused

The probability cannot be known anymore than the existence can be known, therefore the only logical answer is "I don't know."

How is that a logical answer? Just because you don't know somethign 100% doesn't make it logical to say "I don't know" as your final answer.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: CKent
You just said you're a deist? The "He who makes a decision is arrogant" argument is generally reserved for certain agnostic young boys who feel confident in their indecision. Certain godless astronomers who oddly ignore this thread...

Because you baited me in here I'm going to make a quick post but I really need to go to work. Read carefully and let's see if your feeble mind can grasp this concept - I have made a decision. I am an atheist. I am no more agnostic regarding god than I am regarding a magic teapot orbiting the sun. I hold the same level of agnosticism for both. I believe in neither. Do you understand this?

I understand perfectly. Unfortunately for you, you've made absolutely no progress in your effort to say agnisticism and atheism are the same thing.

I am 100% done arguing against your strawman attacks. Find someone else willing to spend a few hours bashing their head against a brick wall, you are just clueless.

Every post of yours is bashing its head against a brick wall. You still haven't made any progress in your argument.

It's no wonder you're so fucked up, you simultaneously claim near-atheism and claim atheism is arrogant to the point of impossibility, arrogantly I might add (but say nothing of its opposite, religion, because as I said there are more of them and that must scare you). Classic case of hypocrisy induced self-hatred.

Now if I took it a step further I'd stereotype all kiwis based on you, but I'll be the bigger man here (in many ways) and stop short of imitating you to THAT extent :laugh:

I'm absolutely astounded that you just don't get this. Let me make it simple. I categorically don't believe in god. You claim to be an atheist. I would contend that the only major difference between your beliefs regarding god and mine is that I accept, on a philosophical level, the logical imperative that it's impossible to prove a negative. That's it. If you can't understand this then you're a lost cause.

I understand it perfectly. It makes you an agnostic. If you can't understand this - as it seems you can't - you're a lost cause.

Atheism is the polar opposite of theism. Like theists, atheists have faith in being right. This is a big paradigm shift from being unsure, eg. agnostic.

Why do you want so badly to be labelled an atheist when you clearly aren't? Who cares so much about labels anyway?

Say it with me this time - atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

 

[I Saw OJ]

Unsure

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CKent

I understand it perfectly. It makes you an agnostic. If you can't understand this - as it seems you can't - you're a lost cause.

It makes him an agnostic atheist.

Atheism is the polar opposite of theism. Like theists, atheists have faith in being right. This is a big paradigm shift from being unsure, eg. agnostic.

No, atheists are simply not theists. Some atheists "have faith" that no gods exist. Some simply do not have a belief that god(s) exists. Without a belief that god exists, they are not theists, therefore they must be atheists. That's how dichotomies work, not that you knew that.

Why do you want so badly to be labelled an atheist when you clearly aren't? Who cares so much about labels anyway?

It seems you do, and you are unreasonably abusing language in the process.

Say it with me this time - atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

The simply are not, and the more you repeat this falsehood, the more ignorant you appear.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: CKent

I understand it perfectly. It makes you an agnostic. If you can't understand this - as it seems you can't - you're a lost cause.

It makes him an agnostic atheist.

Atheism is the polar opposite of theism. Like theists, atheists have faith in being right. This is a big paradigm shift from being unsure, eg. agnostic.

No, atheists are simply not theists. Some atheists "have faith" that no gods exist. Some simply do not have a belief that god(s) exists. Without a belief that god exists, they are not theists, therefore they must be atheists. That's how dichotomies work, not that you knew that.

Why do you want so badly to be labelled an atheist when you clearly aren't? Who cares so much about labels anyway?

It seems you do, and you are unreasonably abusing language in the process.

Say it with me this time - atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

The simply are not, and the more you repeat this falsehood, the more ignorant you appear.

im quoting you because i was going to say this earlier, but i was lazy and didnt feel like really "doing" anything.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Amused

The probability cannot be known anymore than the existence can be known, therefore the only logical answer is "I don't know."

How is that a logical answer? Just because you don't know somethign 100% doesn't make it logical to say "I don't know" as your final answer.

Yes, it does.

It still amazes me how hard this is for people. Including me. It took me years to realize this.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Amused
Yes, it does.

It still amazes me how hard this is for people. Including me. It took me years to realize this.

How about, "I don't know, but I've got a damn good idea."

Always back to that invisible teapot orbiting between Mercury and Venus. Do I know that it's not there? No, because I've never personally gone over the space between Mercury and Venus to verify that it is in fact devoid of matter consistent with my definition of a teapot. But I've got a damn good idea that there's no invisible teapot there.

In any case, if it will have no effect on this planet or any of its effects at any point in the future, that teapot doesn't really matter at all, and thus can, for all practical purposes, be said to be nonexistent.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Amused

The probability cannot be known anymore than the existence can be known, therefore the only logical answer is "I don't know."

How is that a logical answer? Just because you don't know somethign 100% doesn't make it logical to say "I don't know" as your final answer.

Yes, it does.

It still amazes me how hard this is for people. Including me. It took me years to realize this.

In my opinion, "I don't know" can't be the final answer because then you might as well say "I don't know" to everything. "I don't know" that you are a real person typing in these posts either. But what does that mean? Nothing. The evidence points to you existing. So most likely, you exist. I am therefore going to believe that you exist.

God's existence has no evidence (from my perspective). Therefore, I am not going to believe in him. Do I know with 100% certainty? No. But that doesn't mean I can't make a judement call based on the evidence.

Saying "I don't know" is an alright place to start. But if you don't follow it up with "but based on the evidence..." then it is an exercise in silliness and not logical at all.

In my opinion.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Not sure, and all religions are BS.

There can be a god, but it's not a personal god.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Amused

The probability cannot be known anymore than the existence can be known, therefore the only logical answer is "I don't know."

How is that a logical answer? Just because you don't know somethign 100% doesn't make it logical to say "I don't know" as your final answer.

Yes, it does.

It still amazes me how hard this is for people. Including me. It took me years to realize this.

In my opinion, "I don't know" can't be the final answer because then you might as well say "I don't know" to everything. "I don't know" that you are a real person typing in these posts either. But what does that mean? Nothing. The evidence points to you existing. So most likely, you exist. I am therefore going to believe that you exist.

God's existence has no evidence (from my perspective). Therefore, I am not going to believe in him. Do I know with 100% certainty? No. But that doesn't mean I can't make a judement call based on the evidence.

Saying "I don't know" is an alright place to start. But if you don't follow it up with "but based on the evidence..." then it is an exercise in silliness and not logical at all.

In my opinion.

Prove that there is or isn't a god, then get back to me. You yourself said you don't know, just in a fancy way. Everything else you said is irrelevant.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Not sure, and all religions are BS.

There can be a god, but it's not a personal god.

And even so, is it really a "god" per se? Why couldn't it just be some exceptionally advanced alien life form, a few billion years ahead of us in technology?

Even then, it's not a god. It's just another life form.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Not sure, and all religions are BS.

There can be a god, but it's not a personal god.

And even so, is it really a "god" per se? Why couldn't it just be some exceptionally advanced alien life form, a few billion years ahead of us in technology?

Even then, it's not a god. It's just another life form.

Then who created them? "God" as we define it is outside of all things we consider science, the "who create the creator" argument being a prime example. Using that same argument you can say that the creation of the universe is beyond science, but we have a long ways to go on that theory (someone would bring this up).

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Then who created them? "God" as we define it is outside of all things we consider science, the "who create the creator" argument being a prime example. Using that same argument you can say that the creation of the universe is beyond science, but we have a long ways to go on that theory (someone would bring this up).

Personally, I go for the whole Big Bang and evolution dealie.

And let's say that this "god" entity is outside of our laws of science, somehow sitting outside of our spacetime bubble. That realm should have its own "laws," would it not?
They are not supernatural, they are in fact perfectly natural; they just happen to exist beyond our comfortable little realm of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Amused

The probability cannot be known anymore than the existence can be known, therefore the only logical answer is "I don't know."

How is that a logical answer? Just because you don't know somethign 100% doesn't make it logical to say "I don't know" as your final answer.

Yes, it does.

It still amazes me how hard this is for people. Including me. It took me years to realize this.

In my opinion, "I don't know" can't be the final answer because then you might as well say "I don't know" to everything. "I don't know" that you are a real person typing in these posts either. But what does that mean? Nothing. The evidence points to you existing. So most likely, you exist. I am therefore going to believe that you exist.

God's existence has no evidence (from my perspective). Therefore, I am not going to believe in him. Do I know with 100% certainty? No. But that doesn't mean I can't make a judement call based on the evidence.

Saying "I don't know" is an alright place to start. But if you don't follow it up with "but based on the evidence..." then it is an exercise in silliness and not logical at all.

In my opinion.

Prove that there is or isn't a god, then get back to me. You yourself said you don't know, just in a fancy way. Everything else you said is irrelevant.

No I didn't. You misread my post. I wasn't having a discussion about whether God exists.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: datalink7


Saying "I don't know" is an alright place to start. But if you don't follow it up with "but based on the evidence..." then it is an exercise in silliness and not logical at all.

In my opinion.

Your opinion is just an exercise in futility. It's not geared on what you know, but on what you want to make others believe.

Why reach around your ass to get to your elbow? Because, in the end, the only answer is: Unknowable.

You can lay out all the lack of evidence on both sides of the argument, but in the end, that's all you have and you've accomplished nothing but wasting time and energy.

It really is better to just say "I don't know." Agnosticism is really the only logical and intellectually honest answer.

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Funny how people who emphatically deny the existence of a God and say there must be proof are the type of guys that think sexy alien women will come and have their way with them.