[Closed] A nice chat about faith?

I'm a Existential nihilist.

I'm afraid actually, it makes you an agnostic as I understand agnosticism

[b]Agnostic:[/b] A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
-- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

That's not me. I choose not to believe in the existence of deities or gods. That makes me an atheist. A person without theism.

I make that choice based on the evidence I see, therefore clearly I do believe that something CAN be known about the existence of gods. Which means I am not an agnostic.

Clear?

That was some read ..

I was going to post some long winded drivel about Noah being 500 years old when he shoved cats and dogs in the same boat for a year because the locals got a little restless , (in the same respect were all doomed ) But for me the Bible is full of contradictions, and has been re-written so many times to keep the locals in check , Perhaps in theory at the time it was a way for people to conduct themselves in a manor befitting others with respect,

Me I believe ,there might be a God, some proof would be nice , there might not be ,but what I do believe wholeheartedly is people should keep their faith to themselves ,not use it as an excuse to rage war ,kill ,or harm others in his, hers, or Its name

A statistically significantly higher percentage of prisoners are religious than non religous when compared to the general population. That fact conclusively answers the OP's original assertion that church is the place to meet nice people.

[/end thread]

I'm still a little confused about the atheists are angry bit, just like the OP's sweeping generalisation that religious people are nice (skipping the oppression of women, persecution of various groups that are different, twisting of region to incite violence etc.) it's just not that true. To follow up the atheists are angry with heaps of ram it down you religion is awesome your the ones that are missing something stuff really helps the cause there. For all those that found something maybe it's time to let go of it.

I'll live my life, I won't judge your beliefs you are entitled to them so long as they are yours and not being pushed onto others.

I'm an absurdist, apparently.

This has to be one of the most fantastically 6th form threads on here for some time. Keep it up!

Well said Ro5ey

For all that we may disagree, Ro5ey is consistently entertaining and interesting, and I applaud his attitude.

Atheism is the absence of belief, not the rejection. I have never rejected a belief in god because, as far as I can remember, I've never had one to reject.

I was raised to make my own discoveries. A family friend used to give me Jesus comics, with a back page where you could buy your own "good news glove" with multi-coloured fingers. At the time I was young enough to believe adults and found it fascinating.

In the grand scheme of things I was never 'religious' per se, but I was certainly exposed to concepts which, as an adult, I reject.

Have a look at godchecker as there are over 3,000 other gods!

Off the top of my head I reckon you need another four zeros on that figure.

And,

Nope. As you stated earlier, atheism is the rejection in the belief of god(s). Not "rejection in the belief of god(s) until proof comes along from science or something"
What you have there is agnosticism.

No shame in that. No need for absolutes.

No. I'm atheist [i]right now.[/i] If situations change, if new evidence presents itself then I may progress to agnostic or even some form of theist. But right now (for reasons I've explained) I'm atheist.

Arguing that because I don't believe but have an open mind I'm agnostic screams of special pleading from the theists. "Yes, but you're not [i]reeeaaally[/i] atheist are you, you're secretly one of us..." It's point scoring and, frankly, a bit sad.

I was brought up with the standard UK we are all christians schooling but parents never really pushed it (only went to church when my mother was applying for jobs at church schools). I can see why they get a good conversion rate as if you teach it as the norm from the age of 4 then some will stick. Other religions were treated as something to point a bit at and understand that they might believe that but ours is right....
I guess for most who identify as Christian they would identify as Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist if they had been born somewhere else.

I was raised to make my own discoveries.

Have a look at godchecker as there are over 3,000 other gods!

Though if I did have to pick one for an afterlife etc. then I think you can't go too far wrong with this lot
[img] [/img]

Other than a badge to wear, I'm not sure why anyone would logically be either a theist or atheist.

Put it this way -

I have no belief in any 'deity', I believe all the ones mentioned to be human inventions (ie disbelieve owing to lack of evidence for such creatures, notwithstanding the overwhelming wealth of evidence showing them to be of human invention). I also think it unlikely that any supernatural 'deity' such as described actually exists, but am open to change my mind given any new overwhelming evidence

I don't require a label, yet, 'logically' what would my position be known as?

Other than a badge to wear, I'm not sure why anyone would logically be either a theist or atheist.

LOL... missed that one
I don't like nuts, lots of people who like nuts don't get it. I could go into detail and explain my reasons every time but sometimes I get bored and just say allergy. It's quicker and easier.
Same as when people can't comprehend that you don't share their view on other things, it's easier to have one word that answers the question.

I'll live my life, I won't judge your beliefs you are entitled to them so long as they are yours and not being pushed onto others

At horaJnrs school I noticed the church (cough) school had placed a cartoon book in his satchel. In it depicted the angels rising over mons on the battlefield and the miracle that occurred there.

I stopped myself from correcting them about the true story of the event. Whats the point?

There are people hereabouts who bang on about the advantages of different wheel sizes. Surely they can't all be right?

That's faith bolstered with science. If the position is still felt to be insecure then use pseudoscience. If there is no good result via pseudoscience then fall back on faith alone. If faith alone isn't working then besmirch those without faith. And around it goes

Here by the grace of secularism go I*

(*On my 26ers/20ers and sometimes 700cers - all welcome in my Church of Bike)

In it depicted the angles rising over mons and the miracle that occurred there.

Photo realistic picture of some Angles Rising Over a Mons:

[img] [/img]

Edit: boo, amusement spoilt by a ninja edit 🙂

the angels rising over mons on the battlefield and the miracle that occurred there.

Even the author of this tried telling the papers (at the time) etc that it was fictional but eventually gave up.

I stopped myself from correcting them about the true story of the event. Whats the point?

It would bother me if they were teaching my children fiction as fact.

But if it was just a cartoon illustrating a story then that'd be fine by me. As long as it was clear it was just a story.

In the same way I am happy for my kids to be taught about religion. In fact I think it is important. Just as long as it is taught as [i]"This is what some people believe"[/i], rather than [i]"This is what we/you believe"[/i]. Sadly the latter seems very prevalent.

Arguing that because I don't believe but have an open mind I'm agnostic screams of special pleading from the theists. "Yes, but you're not reeeaaally atheist are you, you're secretly one of us..." It's point scoring and, frankly, a bit sad.

I don't think so.. just seems like semantics to me. We've all set our positions out, we just don't know what name to apply.

We've all set our positions out, we just don't know what name to apply.

I'm pretty clear what name applies to me: atheist.

But for some reason a couple of other people seem keen to tell me what I [i]really[/i] believe and what I [i]really[/i] am. 😕

I then looked into my heart and it was there
where He dwelled that I saw Him

Let's suppose that you're talking about your "innermost self" - a concept created by your self-aware intelligence - and not the actual organ that pumps your blood around.

Mate, that's not a "god" - that's YOU.

Perhaps you might want to consider that this concept itself - "I" - is a result of the interaction of various parts of your brain that mostly function as separate independent process engines (we know this because it is evidenced) then you can grasp that even this - the concept of "I" - is an illusion of the imagination, plus everything generated from it including ideas about gods and the like.

As a tool to measure and observe the universe and agree on the results (that includes ourselves and what makes us ourselves), our conciousness is unparalleled. At least, on this planet.

hora - Member
At horaJnrs school I noticed the church (cough) school had placed a cartoon book in his satchel. In it depicted the angels rising over mons on the battlefield and the miracle that occurred there.

I stopped myself from correcting them about the true story of the event. Whats the point?

don't think so.. just seems like semantics to me.

But for some reason a couple of other people seem keen to tell me what I really believe and what I really am.

So if evidence comes along that shows a god(s) exists you'll change your mind. How is that not allowing the possibilty of god(s) existing?

'Allowing the possibility' is a bit disingenuous I think- it's not true in any meaningful sense and implies that the alternative is actually on the table. It's a bit of a stretch to say you're allowing the possibility of something by acknowledging that you can't strictly speaking disprove it. If that were the case we'd all be allowing the possibility of an infinite amount of old guff that anyone could dream up, which of course we're not in any active or meaningful way.

I've got to agree with Woppit as well in that it's also pretty disingenuous IME to say stuff like "He/She is in our hearts" or "maybe God is just a word for that feeling you get when you're out in the mountains at sunrise, hmmm?"

I'm pretty sure people who come out with this stuff aren't really saying "let's give this thing a name and call it, oh, I dunno, 'God', although it could just as easily be 'Dave' or 'Hefneg'".

While one cannot disprove the existence of God in the sense that it is impossible to prove a negative. One can define what a god is then posit how the world would be if a God of that description existed . Such an exercise tends to reveal an absence of God rather than a God shaped hole.

My favourite being that God to be God would be universal as in Omnipresent if so why has he not been recognised and worshiped in the same way across the globe throughout human history. See the total differences between the Inca Egyptian Greek/Roman and Abrahamic ideas of who god is and what God wants.

There are lots of logical issues with the concept of God as described in the Bible. However, it may not be beneficial to pursue them 🙂

There are also plenty of alternative concepts to consider, but if they are not the subject of a religion then it's probably not worth pursuing them either.

There is a great scene in True Detective (highly recommend btw) where Matthew Mcconaughey pretty wells sums my thoughts to a tea.
For your viewing pleasure

One can define what a god is then posit how the world would be if a God of that description existed . Such an exercise tends to reveal an absence of God rather than a God shaped hole.

There may / may not be some sort of deity(ies) out there but if the evidence is hidden at some sort of quantum level (for example) then we're a very long way from finding out.

Language is the flaw in many typical theists arguments.
The limitations of our understanding of the natural world (aka science) is the flaw in most atheist arguments.

However (to go back to the OP) if science proves that having faith gives you a higher chance of survival to not having faith - in a scientific sense having faith is the correct evolutionary path.

Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we [b]can[/b] suppose.

J. B. S. Haldane.

"This is fake logic - as it assumes that all your descriptions of the 'thing' are correct.
Philosophically even using the word God brings in the limitations of linguistics (God being a singular masculine word) and also assumes that the human experience of the world is non-subjective (i.e. is not limited by our own physical natures)."
This really is flawed, we as subjective creatures have defined and worshiped a supreme being we call God it is perfectly logical to consider whether that being does or does not exist.

If you ask whether there may be as yet other entities that are in existence possibly at a quantum level or in the folds of the duvet multiverse, then yes we can entertain and analyse as best we can that concept but we have stopped talking about the existence of "God" in the human religious context and started talking about Hypothetical undefined entities .

but we have stopped talking about the existence of "God" in the human religious context and started talking about Hypothetical undefined entities .

Exactly. As has been said several times, not believing in deities does not equate to not believing in anything beyond our current understanding of the universe.

I'm not "limited" by our understanding of the universe, I'm simply informed by it.

GrahamS - Member
I'm afraid actually, it makes you an agnostic as I understand agnosticism
Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
-- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

That's not me. I choose not to believe in the existence of deities or gods. That makes me an atheist. A person without theism.

I make that choice based on the evidence I see, therefore clearly I do believe that something CAN be known about the existence of gods. Which means I am not an agnostic.

Clear?

Then lets look at our friend the agnostic according even to your Oxford English definition: 'A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.' that is a plain simple un contradictory statement.

It is why it is so logical, all you theists of both flavours are always contradictory when challenged, "oh I don't believe in God(s), but I might if someone proves it, sorry you can't say that, that's a something else. Atheism is the rejection of belief in deities, there are none, nada.. Not or there might be.

You my friend really should redefine your description of yourself, come out, be agnostic, move to Brighton have parades, vote Green 😉

oh I don't believe in God(s), but I might if someone proves it, sorry you can't say that

Eh? Why not?

I don't believe there's anywhere on the planet where gravity works backwards, but if it turned out there was I'd have to revise my belief wouldn't I? Same thing, surely?

MrSalmon - Member
oh I don't believe in God(s), but I might if someone proves it, sorry you can't say that
Eh? Why not?

I don't believe there's anywhere on the planet where gravity works backwards, but if it turned out there was I'd have to revise my belief wouldn't I? Same thing, surely?

Because the two words Atheist and Agnostic mean two different things, one deals with (dis)belief, the other deals with knowledge . That statement suggests a combination of both where actually none exists, if you are an Atheist your opinion is formed from belief whereas an Agnostic deals (more logically imv) in knowledge.

Technically all those believers should be referred to as Agnostic Theists, since they can't possible know. The Day there is a 'Gnostic' Theist, is the day the problem is proved.

if you are an Atheist your opinion is formed from belief

Nope. It's formed by a lack of evidence. Why you no rissen?

derrick im sure graham can speak for himself but he appears to have said he is an atheist he does not believe in God but he does concede the intellectual possibility of the existence of Hue. Hue is not God as anyone defines God in any Religion.

Then lets look at our friend the agnostic according even to your Oxford English definition: 'A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.' that is a plain simple un contradictory statement.

If gods exist, then something [i]can [/i]be known about them, we've just not found it yet. The only way they cannot be known about is it they don't exist. And as this is what I believe, your dictionary definition of "agnostic" demonstrably doesn't apply to me.

I reject the belief in deities. Absolutely. It's fanciful nonsense. QED, atheist. The caveat that you're so desperately clinging to, which is that in the [i]hypothetical [/i]situation that one day a god or gods come riding in on a winged unicorn going "chocolate eggs for everyone!" then I will of course revise my opinion. That's nothing because I'm a closet agnostic, it's because we will have suddenly been presented with the evidence that has thus far been utterly lacking for millennia.

Nope. It's formed by a lack of evidence.

No. (a)theist = (dis)Belief
(a)gnostic = (without)knowledge

Sorry not my opinion, linguistic fact, it's all Greek to me.. 😉

Thomas Henry Huxley said:[12][13]

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.

So if you form the view that there are sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that God does not exist you are an atheist . If you concede that were there to be fresh evidence that demonstrated that god existed you would review your position you are both an Athiest and a Scientist and not a dogmatist .

Pwned.

if you are an Atheist your opinion is formed from belief

I don't need "belief" to dismiss the idea that gods, hobbits, Spongebob Squarepants or Santa Claus are actually real. The burden of proof is not on me to justify rejecting fairy stories, it's on the people making wild claims to back them up.

Technically all those believers should be referred to as Agnostic Theists, since they can't possible know

Why is it so important to you to score this point? You've been trotting out this same trollish bobbins for years on the previous accounts you've had banned. You can call us banana sandwiches for the difference it makes, it doesn't change what anyone thinks, believes or knows.

There is no contradiction there. If you think there is then you misunderstand my argument.

oh I don't believe in God(s), but I might if someone proves it, sorry you can't say that, that's a something else.

No, it really isn't.

I don't believe in gods based on the evidence I see. That makes me an atheist.

If new evidence emerges that convinces me otherwise then I may decide I am no longer atheist. That makes me reasonable.

It absolutely DOES NOT make me agnostic.

[b]An agnostic cannot change their mind based on evidence[/b] (and still remain an agnostic) because an agnostic is someone who believes that it is [b]not possible[/b] to know anything about the existence of gods, regardless of the evidence.

Agnosticism does not mean [i]"maybe"[/i], it means [i]"that is forever unknowable"[/i].

So even if a shiny guy with a very convincing beard appeared on a cloud and started doing lots of God-things like resurrecting the dead, causing floods and plagues, forming planets and creating new life from clay then an agnostic would still say [i]"We cannot know that he is a god"[/i].

Whereas I might say [i]"Hmm... looks like I was wrong. That bloke meets the description of a deity, so I guess I now believe in at least one deity"[/i] and at that point I would stop being an atheist.