Do you believe in God?

[homeforsummer]

it's modern English definition is a "person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion"

Still not quite correct. Ten seconds on google:

ag·nos·tic/agˈnästik/
Noun:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;..

There's a clear difference between being "unwilling to commit" and "believing that nothing is/can be known". That applies regardless of religious/non-religious context.

So in fact, the Greek root is the definition. Still.

 

[Dapper]

Ten seconds on google:

Agnostic defined.
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

And you edited "a person who believes God is unknowable" out of my quote and then you cited a source reiterating precisely what you omitted.

There's a clear difference between being "unwilling to commit" and "believing that nothing is/can be known". That applies regardless of religious/non-religious context.

So in fact, the Greek root is the definition. Still.

There is a negligible difference between your quotes.
Agnosticism today is not "the absence of the practice of obtaining knowledge"...
Agnostic today is not "the absence of holding knowledge".

I mean that, due to the lack of evidence that any Gods exist, everyone is effectively agnostic when it comes to the existence of Gods.


Agnostic literally means (being) without knowledge, so it can apply to anything, not just religion. In the context of the debate about the existence of God, no-one can rightly claim to have knowledge (as defined as objective, scientific evidence) of the existence of God, therefore, strictly speaking, everyone is agnostic when it comes to the existence of God, whether they admit it/realise it/believe it or not.

Agnostic is a belief. Without that belief, being Agnostic is impossible. Agnostic does not mean without knowledge, that is simply the root.

It has everything to do with it - by definition, agnostic means 'without knowledge'. If you do not know, then you are agnostic. If you claim not to be agnostic, then you need to provide evidence to back up your claim. Remember that theists (believers) can be (and ought to be) agnostic too.

You are defining ignorant.

Since Agnostic is a belief, there is no need to provide evidence to help support one's own thoughts. Evidence is only needed when discussing, or more like proving objectivity.

No.

Declaring atheism - that you do not believe in any Gods - is just that, and only that.

Declaring agnosticism - that you do not know whether Gods exist or not - is to admit* that one doesn't have enough information/evidence to know either way, and may never have. I argue that everyone is effectively agnostic because no-one currently has that information. Being agnostic on the existence of God is entirely sensible, since to claim otherwise would require one to provide evidence to back up that claim.

Not believing that Gods exist (atheism) is not the same as claiming that you know for certain that Gods do not exist (that is nontheism, not atheism). Atheism is simply a lack of belief, not a statement of certainty either way. As such, atheism is entirely consistent with agnosticism - and agnosticism on the existence of Gods is entirely consistent with the evidence (or more specifically, the lack of it).

*Agnostic is a belief, no evidence invocation is needed to allow one to believe whatever they want. Evidence is only needed to prove objectivity, not a belief.

I understand atheist don't believe in God or gods, but that doesn't answer what they believe in. If a person has a question ("Where did life originate?" for instance, which every person has had with themselves) and it is not answered then that person MUST arrive at a conclusion... called a belief (even if it is 'I don't know'). An atheist says I don't believe in God, then they can't believe they don't know.

(degrees of certainty are a bit redundant. If one isn't comfortably certain enough that one's belief is right-to the point where one is so uncertain of their beliefs, things with opposing definitions describe your position-then one should be more certain before declaring said belief)

 

[TankAss95]

Okay. *Deep breath* Let's try this again from the top...

How did you get from "I believe there is nothing beyond this life" to "That's like 'guilty until proven innocent'."?

What I meant was that it was like "There is no afterlife because there is no evidence for it" or "There is no afterlife until there is evidence for it".

Guilty= negative
Innocent= positive

That's what I meant when I said that. I meant it in a descriptive manner, nothing to do with bad/good about anything. Poor choice of words, I admit, but I didn't mean to cause any confusion.

 

[Bobalob]

"There is no need to believe in god"
Positive

"You must believe in god"
Negative

Your point being tankass?

 

[TankAss95]

"There is no need to believe in god"
Positive

"You must believe in god"
Negative

Your point being tankass?

What I meant was:

There is an afterlife= innocent (positive)
There is not an afterlife= guilty (negative)

 

[Doth1s]

Why is believing there is no afterlife a negative thing?

 

[HP]

Why is believing there is no afterlife a negative thing?

My question exactly.

Surely if a thing is not yet proven, and the afterlife is not as one must rely on faith alone to get there, then the onus of proof is on those claiming its existence as no precedent has been set for it.

I have said this before and I am saying it again: When there is no tangible evidence of something but a person then states that there is such a thing then it is upon that person to prove it, otherwise it's a baseless claim.

 

[arora]

Not believing isn't negative, it's just the negitive side of the argument. As in, do NOT aposed to do.

Do murder, possitive
D not murder, negative

Some people are pretty sensitive.........

 

[niky]

What I meant was:

There is an afterlife= innocent (positive)
There is not an afterlife= guilty (negative)

You still don't get it.

There is an afterlife: Claim that needs proving: Guilty

There is no afterlife: Refutation of claim: Innocent.

Denial is not a claim. It is a refutation of the claim. There's no reason to declare innocence if there is no accusation of guilt, in the first place.

None of us are labelled "innocent of murder" until we've actually been accused of murder. Going around telling people: "I'm innocent" in the absence of accusation makes absolutely no sense.

In the court of law, the defense is the one refuting the claim, whereas the prosecution is the one making it. This is very similar to the court of science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

-----

Perhaps it may offend the sensibilities when stated this way, but we weren't the ones who started using "Guilty-Innocent" terminology...

 

[Liquid]

What we're getting at is how are you absolutely and unequivocally sure that what you have experienced is the absolute truth and how does that compare to those who have experienced the absolute truths of Ra, Neptune or Odin?

It makes it inconvenient that there are so many religions and that Jesus is the one true son of the living God, yes.

Those who believed in Zeus, Saturn and Petbe were as absolutely certain and as convinced as you and everybody else.

You don't know that for certain.

So are you suggesting that they were doing it for the lulz or what?

It's from a few weeks back now but I still want these points addressed.

 

[AlexGTV]

I have come to the conclusion that believing in God is a pursuit for feeling, while not believing, or at least questioning, is a pursuit for understanding.

 

[Crispy]

What really annoys me, is this.

So I'm having a conversation with the new kid today, were getting along fairly well, when he asks me, what country are you from? So, I reply "Greece". Afterwards he says, "So you believe in the Greek Gods? You know they aren't real, so your going to Hell, but I can help save you, just believe in God!"

Seriously? So what makes the Greek Gods fake, and God real? To me, every god is something created by the human mind to give comfort. Another thing that annoys me.

So, Texas got hit by a series of tornadoes yesterday. This one lady on the news said that it was God sending her a message. So, God didn't bother with mail, cloud formations, phone calls, or text message, he just decided to ruin the lives of countless others by destroying their homes and injuring them just so YOU, could get a measly message. Who thinks of that? Really, how dumb (I'm sorry, but really?) can you be, to think that?

That just proves something I've thought time and time again. That religion isn't, and never will be based off of logic.

 

[HP]

I thought this thread had finally died... Then I see it's been, ahem, resurrected at Easter

 

[nitrorocks]

So, Texas got hit by a series of tornadoes yesterday. This one lady on the news said that it was God sending her a message. So, God didn't bother with mail, cloud formations, phone calls, or text message, he just decided to ruin the lives of countless others by destroying their homes and injuring them just so YOU, could get a measly message. Who thinks of that? Really, how dumb (I'm sorry, but really?) can you be, to think that?
.

It's reality. God works in mysterious ways. That one lady already believes in god, so that means she probably needs to make changes in her life. Also, he needs to make changes in the other victims lives. He also does give people messages privately like you said. When he wants to inform a group of people to change their lives, he does a natural disaster or something else. When he wants to reach an individual, he can do it privately, or publicly like a natural disaster. Its happened to me more than once.

 

[HP]

It's reality. God works in mysterious ways. That one lady already believes in god, so that means she probably needs to make changes in her life. Also, he needs to make changes in the other victims lives. He also does give people messages privately like you said. When he wants to inform a group of people to change their lives, he does a natural disaster or something else. When he wants to reach an individual, he can do it privately, or publicly like a natural disaster. Its happened to me more than once.

He sure does send a good message... just ask anyone who's lost a child violently, but of course god does work in mysterious ways so all those who die in acts of "god" had it coming really, right?

Those homeless folks from Hurricane Katrina? Deserved it yes? The Brisbane Floods? How can those stupid people even think they don't need a message in the form of drowning and homelessness and don't get me started on those pesky Japanese complaining about that quake, how dare they complain when it's obviously a message to smarten up and fly right... silly, silly folks.

Sorry god, for they know not what they do.

Now if the entire bible belt got wiped out and destroyed in a monster disaster? What then? Would that still be a "message"? As gods children die horrifically would that still be an acceptable "mysterious way" or is that restricted to non-believers and heathens only?

:facepalm:

 

[Tesla]

It'd be their release from being bound to a physical form I presume.

 

[PeterJB]

What really annoys me, is this.

So I'm having a conversation with the new kid today, were getting along fairly well, when he asks me, what country are you from? So, I reply "Greece". Afterwards he says, "So you believe in the Greek Gods? You know they aren't real, so your going to Hell, but I can help save you, just believe in God!"

Seriously? So what makes the Greek Gods fake, and God real? To me, every god is something created by the human mind to give comfort. Another thing that annoys me.

The Greek and Roman Gods are a bit different from most others, because essentially they are the Gods of scientific principles. God of the Sun, God of the Sea etc. While I'm not saying that their believe in a deity or deities was wrong, they basically manifested their interpretation of God into the scientific principles and various other natural phenomena that they had a very limited knowledge about.

[/QUOTE]

So, Texas got hit by a series of tornadoes yesterday. This one lady on the news said that it was God sending her a message. So, God didn't bother with mail, cloud formations, phone calls, or text message, he just decided to ruin the lives of countless others by destroying their homes and injuring them just so YOU, could get a measly message. Who thinks of that? Really, how dumb (I'm sorry, but really?) can you be, to think that?

That just proves something I've thought time and time again. That religion isn't, and never will be based off of logic. [/QUOTE]

You're correct, that is stupid. I can understand why most American atheists can get very wound up, because sometimes it feels as if America is a breeding ground for religious nuts! It's interesting how Christianity is wound into our constitution, and yet it isn't a particularly big part of most British people's lives anymore, but the American constitution talks about freedom of religion, and it's become one of the world's most Christian countries!

I don't believe that God sent those tornadoes, and I definitely don't believe He did to send a 'message' to one person, and to punish the heathen. I believe in a God of love, not a God of hate, vengeance, or anger. Those tornadoes were caused by weather patterns that prevent the Earth from eating itself, they just happen to have taken lives in their path.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

What really annoys me, is this.

So I'm having a conversation with the new kid today, were getting along fairly well, when he asks me, what country are you from? So, I reply "Greece". Afterwards he says, "So you believe in the Greek Gods? You know they aren't real, so your going to Hell, but I can help save you, just believe in God!"

Seriously? So what makes the Greek Gods fake, and God real? To me, every god is something created by the human mind to give comfort. Another thing that annoys me.

So, Texas got hit by a series of tornadoes yesterday. This one lady on the news said that it was God sending her a message. So, God didn't bother with mail, cloud formations, phone calls, or text message, he just decided to ruin the lives of countless others by destroying their homes and injuring them just so YOU, could get a measly message. Who thinks of that? Really, how dumb (I'm sorry, but really?) can you be, to think that?

That just proves something I've thought time and time again. That religion isn't, and never will be based off of logic.

Did the lady actually suggested the "whole point" of the storm was to send her a message? I think you probably misunderstood what she meant. I heard many testify through the years God has help them through a storm and sometimes something good happen out of a bad event. (For example a loss of a love one sometimes open the eyes of another.)
There is nothing illogical in finding something good out of a bad situation. In fact, this is one of the things they found in common with those who live 100+ years old. They learn to accept loss (including seeing their children pass away) and continue on.

 

[dylansan]

So I guess God is incapable of sending messages to people without requiring the death of others. Mass destruction is apparently God's most efficient method of transferring information.

 

[AlexGTV]

Sounds like a great Hollywood script. Michael Bay should be the producer.

 

[HP]

So I guess God is incapable of sending messages to people without requiring the death of others. Mass destruction is apparently God's most efficient method of transferring information.

I was going to say something similiar but I deemed it wise to remain silent since I've been drinking for around 14 hours... whilst it was a wise decision I'm a bit miffed because there was a dust devil in my back yard and I was too drunk to understand the message behind it

 

[theotherspongey]

So I guess God is incapable of sending messages to people without requiring the death of others. Mass destruction is apparently God's most efficient method of transferring information.

Well it kind of is...

 

[Sam48]

So I guess God is incapable of sending messages to people without requiring the death of others.

You've come to that conclusion in a terribly illogical way. If one person states God is sending a message to them via a massive storm and many deaths, that's fine. Their conclusion does not speak for anyone but themselves and anyone else who may agree with them at that point in time. It does not somehow exclude the possibility of God sending a message via another method.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

So I guess God is incapable of sending messages to people without requiring the death of others. Mass destruction is apparently God's most efficient method of transferring information.

Or maybe it's often through trials we stop and see what important in life. You can hear and still not listen. I've been guilty of hearing my wife talking to me and not hear one word she said. I hate it when she want to repeat it and I have no clue what she was talking about.
Anyone who go to church only once a year would understand what this woman meant. Haven't any of you ever heard someone testify in church before?

 

[dylansan]

You've come to that conclusion in a terribly illogical way. If one person states God is sending a message to them via a massive storm and many deaths, that's fine. Their conclusion does not speak for anyone but themselves and anyone else who may agree with them at that point in time. It does not somehow exclude the possibility of God sending a message via another method.

If God can send a message in a way that does not require destruction, he should not be sending messages that cause destruction. Otherwise, he's killing innocent people when he doesn't have to.

Or maybe it's often through trials we stop and see what important in life. You can hear and still not listen. I've been guilty of hearing my wife talking to me and not hear one word she said. I hate it when she want to repeat it and I have no clue what she was talking about.
Anyone who go to church only once a year would understand what this woman meant. Haven't any of you ever heard someone testify in church before?

I'm pretty sure if a burning bush started talking to me I'd listen pretty closely and take heed of it. Yes, "trials" do change us but they are not necessary when there are other methods of getting a point across.

What it comes down to is if God was omnipotent, he wouldn't have to cause suffering in order to deliver messages. The fact that there is suffering either means he is not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent. Or doesn't exist.

 

[Sam48]

If God can send a message in a way that does not require destruction, he should not be sending messages that cause destruction. Otherwise, he's killing innocent people when he doesn't have to.

It's all how you interpret the situation. If someone believes that God sent them a message via a tornado, then that's their personal interpretation. No matter how you interpret the result, it does not change the fact that a tornado hit, and people died as a result.

 

[Conza]

While this statement may be insulting, it isn't directed at any 'one' person.

Should we be impressed that only just over half of us don't believe in god? of 888 people, only 455 don't believe in god, I'm a bit disappointed really, I thought it'd be much more.

Have a guess, no I don't believe in a magical man in the clouds who created all things, invented light, the universe, the world, you have to follow his rules, but his emissary supposedly came ~2000 years ago to say 'dudes, do this' then doesn't come back to keep telling us to do it.

God is a manifestation of the primitive man, the modern man uses science instead, not in co-ordination. Scientific evidence is far too great to allow for god as the christians state him, especially without any flexibility *cough* 6000 year old earth *cough*.

 

[obsessive rules]

No. Moving on.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

What it comes down to is if God was omnipotent, he wouldn't have to cause suffering in order to deliver messages. The fact that there is suffering either means he is not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent. Or doesn't exist.

Or it's possible some things are just beyond your understanding.

Have a guess, no I don't believe in a magical man in the clouds who created all things

Me neither but this thread isn't about magical man in the clouds or space aliens. There is no difference between magic and anything beyond human understanding. Ex: Abiogenesis is life magically popped into existence against insane odds.

 

[dylansan]

No. Omnipotent means he can do anything without limit (he did supposedly create the universe). So if he wanted to do anything, he would do it, because there would be nothing to stop him. If he wanted to prevent disasters, he would, or else he wouldn't be omnipotent. And if he doesn't want to prevent disasters, he's not someone I want to worship.

Honestly your response just tells me you're not willing to question your beliefs. It means everything is possible no matter how absurd and impossible it is, because "we can't comprehend infinite power." You could use that argument to justify any belief, which makes it a really bad argument.