Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ampersand]

There's a perfectly good reason to not believe in God, and that's because there has never been a single shred of empirical evidence that God exists. None of the logical no-God arguments work, but they aren't necessary anyway. IMO this makes agnosticism the most defensible, scientific position on the matter,  since "atheist" implies certainty. of course a lot of atheists would disagree

If you say you don't know whether something is true are not, then you don't believe something is true. The two words are very different in meaning, though. If a person says that they are a Theist, then they personally hold a belief that a god exists. It is possible to be a Theist, and an Agnostic, to say that one does not hold perfect knowledge that a god exists, and still believe.

An Atheist who claims that they are absolutely certain that a God does not exist would be a Gnostic Atheist, one who claims to have knowledge that a god does not exist. Almost all atheists you will ever meet are also agnostic.

The problem is that the two words are not measuring the same thing, they deal with completely separate issues. What one believes to be true, and what one knows.

[Jude]

I guess that's a good explanation. I've had arguments with atheists who insist I'm a "crypto-atheist" for not using the word. It's really more that I don't like the connotations it has, of certainty, and of Richard-Dawkins-esque anti-religious douchery

[Jookia]

The Holy Bible is fiction. I thought the talking snake gave that away.

[Enzo]

All subsequent posters in this thread must first read all 134 pages of the Athiest thread, to be assured they aren't rehashing any arguments. Any rehashed arguments from this point on will be dismissed.

[Cthulhu]

This is an atheism thread.  All the arguments are rehashed.  It's like in Jericho, this battle happens over and over again and you have to sacrifice yourself to end it.

[Leafsnail]

There's a perfectly good reason to not believe in God, and that's because there has never been a single shred of empirical evidence that God exists. None of the logical no-God arguments work, but they aren't necessary anyway. IMO this makes agnosticism the most defensible, scientific position on the matter,  since "atheist" implies certainty. of course a lot of atheists would disagree

It's just that then I'd have to mark myself as "agnostic" for any and all claims made without evidence.  Which would just be pointless and pedantic, really.  I'm allowed to express "I'm going to the shops tomorrow" in certain terms even if there's a chance I won't be able to go.

I guess that's a good explanation. I've had arguments with atheists who insist I'm a "crypto-atheist" for not using the word. It's really more that I don't like the connotations it has, of certainty, and of Richard-Dawkins-esque anti-religious douchery

Eh, not exactly.  It just seems like an unnecessary word shift.

[Tofu]

well, I'll just chip in my five cents here.

Any god who is supposed to be omnipotent is pretty much a retarded idea from the start.
Now, I'll just take the "god of the desert" as an example( hey, easiest to bash, right?)

I haven't read most of the bible (wait a sec before you bash me on that), but I know one, single thing that is said in the bible, which completely screws over the rest of what's said.
God is omnipotent.
By being omnipotent he has no logical boundaries, and can do what he wants to do without regards to the laws of the universe, or any other logical boundaries.
God's apparent reason for giving us rational and free minds, is that he wants real love from us, and our honest undying worship.
since he's omnipotent he could not give us free will, make us really love him out of our own free will, and worship him because we already acknowledge him as our god.
Do you see the flaw here?
He wouldn't even have to sacrifice Jesus for our sins, he could have just get rid of them. He wouldn't NEED to do anything to do anything.

well....excuse the rant here, but I'm trying to get the sleepy-bullshit out of my head for a moment.... just woke up.
But anyways, this is one of the reasons I don't believe in omnipotent gods. I don't even want to go into the subject of "lesser" gods.

[Jude]

Yeah, the internal nonsense of Christian theology - what with God sacrificing Godself to God to excuse us humans for sins that only God could judge us for in the first place - not to mention the trinity - is one thing that makes it less appealing

As a basic set of rules for how to live it seems pretty awesome actually, and hence why the early christians were hippie communists that were nice to everybody. The thing is, it doesn't make any sense for this pacifist, universalist religion to be grafted onto old-testament-Judaism, which includes plenty of commands from God to slaughter people indiscriminately, and has a huge set of OCD purity rules designed to keep its followers from associating too closely with anybody else. There's basically no way to reconcile what Jesus was all about (despite saying he was here to "fulfill the Law") and the religion he was allegedly fulfilling.

Christianity also lacks any comprehensive set of rules, making it yet more of a hippie-communist-revolutionary way-of-life type thing than a normal "religion" (at least in its very early form, and prior to Constantine effing it all up) but also leaving things really vague. Muhammad really one-upped Jesus on that front, you can tell he was planning to found a major religion and planned it all out. But of course planning for all eventualities meant he went from pacifism to "you can defend yourself from violence" and eventually, in practice, to "you can conquer people with violence to spread the faith."

That's why I always have a hard time buying when people say Judaism or Islam are "religions of peace." Which they did all the time in the middle east during discussions of the Palestine conflict. It's like the person saying it is projecting their personal beliefs onto the religion against all evidence. Christianity on the other hand, actually IS a religion of peace if you look at its founder, but is of course probably responsible for more violence than any other religion by its followers throughout time.

Anyway I'm pretty much rambling.

[Nether]

(                                         )
(    NOT FUCKING AGAIN!         )
(                                         )
(Sorry, I just had to say that...)
(                                         )

[Leafsnail]

(                                         )
(    NOT FUCKING AGAIN!         )
(                                         )
(Sorry, I just had to say that...)
(                                         )

[pedant]I don't think your sex life has anything to do with this thread[/pedant]

Anyway, I really don't get why people feel the need to drop into this thread, insult everyone and jump out again.  I mean, if you're saying people will never change their minds, why are you trying to get people to change their minds?  I mean, it's one thing to find theological discussions boring, and quite another to start insulting those who find them interesting.

[Cthulhu]

Because this isn't a topic the internet can discuss.  People will get insulting.

[Leafsnail]

And if people do get insulting, why is that your problem?  I mean, is a possibility of people being insulted mean you cannot accept the existence of such a thread?

[Aqizzar]

And if people do get insulting, why is that your problem?  I mean, is a possibility of people being insulted mean you cannot accept the existence of such a thread?

It's not the insulting, it's the sound and fury over nothing.  I see the "arguments" like this thread similar to this-



-and on some level it does kind of disgust me to see people expending so much effort and personal ire, and so much blatant jackassery and insulting, over a topic that no one involved even really knows what they're talking about, much less could ever possibly be convinced of anything besides what they already believe.  And consequently, will defend their "stance" right into the ground long after everyone but the other person being argued with stopped caring or listening.

It's a race to see who gives up in frustration first, you're not accomplishing anything.  Not to mention Toady quite specifically has a rule against personal insults and antagonism, which arguing about religion on the Internet always leads to, as it already has here.

[Psyco Jelly]

Does autotheism make you jackass?

[Fooj]

this makes agnosticism the most defensible, scientific position on the matter

Yet atheism seems far more popular, and even people who are agnostic by definition I find they still insist that they are atheists.

one, single thing that is said in the bible, which completely screws over the rest of what's said.
God is omnipotent.

Remember earlier when I said that, given the day and age the Bible was written, it didn't matter if they saw a Deity in a flaming chariot, a spaceship, or a meteor, that it would all be written down as the same thing? Same goes for omnipotence, near omnipotence, really powerful being who claims to be omnipotent, or just a series of coincidences. Provided the Bible was based on an actual intervention by a higher being, it could have been Melllvar for all we know.

That's why I always have a hard time buying when people say Judaism or Islam are "religions of peace." Which they did all the time in the middle east during discussions of the Palestine conflict. It's like the person saying it is projecting their personal beliefs onto the religion against all evidence. Christianity on the other hand, actually IS a religion of peace if you look at its founder, but is of course probably responsible for more violence than any other religion by its followers throughout time.

Islam and Judaism have had more violence. Christianity led to the Catholic zealotry of Medieval Europe, Crusades and Inquisition and such, but Judaism's birth was by sword and after the foundation of Israel it's existence continues to be such. Same goes for Islam. They've both had a much longer (IE as long as they've existed) violence streak.