Do you believe in God?

[Dennisch]

I like how you present your way of thinking. It doesn't make any sense what so ever, but I like it.

 

[Mustangmiha]

How's this relevant to the GTP? 👎

And in what I believe isn't no one's concern but mine.

 

[Dennisch]

How's this relevant to the GTP? 👎

And in what I believe isn't no one's concern but mine.

.....

Because there is more in the world than just videogames.

 

[Famine]

How's this relevant to the GTP? 👎

It's a thread covering opinions in our Opinions & Current Events forum.

Seems pretty relevant to me.

 

[huskeR32]

Quite true.
However, when making statements concerning such, those statements must be consistent with the position taken.

I haven't seen any atheists in this discussion make claims that weren't "consistent with the position taken," namely atheism. You're making a classic theist mistake here; when somebody says they don't believe that your god exists, you twist that around in your head to be a positive claim of non-existence. It's not. If you can finally grasp that, we just might make a little progress in this discussion.

That is a statement of belief, based on one side of Scientific criteria.

There are no "sides" when talking about scientific inquiry. No matter what you're talking about, be it god or any other idea, the objective evidence points one way or the other. If evidence seems to be supporting multiple conflicting theories at once, then you have bad theories that need to be refined. But in the end, the evidence only points one way. There are no sides, just the truth.

Now you are contradicting, your former statement.
If the Abrahamic God cannot exist, then the Bible could not be right.
As I've pointed out numerous times it's "either or".

This is exactly what I was referring to above, the classic theist mistake of treating atheists as nontheists. Famine said:

Specifically the Abrahamic God cannot exist as described in the Bible...

You then represent that as:

If the Abrahamic God cannot exist...

Yes, without the "as described in the Bible" bit, Famine words would have been self-contradictory. Problem is, he did say that bit. It was just convenient for you to ignore it, so that you could build yet another strawman. You're quite talented at that.

Then that position can only be stated as, God may, or may not exist, to be consistent and maintain alignment with no belief.

Pointing out the fallacies of your argument does not take one out of "alignment" with the atheist position.

If using or basing your belief on Scientific criteria, that criteria is one of complete neutrality.
As stated previously, there is no objective evidence for existence, and there is no objective evidence for non-existence.

Quite true, there is a similar lack of objective evidence for both theism and nontheism. Which is why it's important to recognize the true stance of atheists. We aren't making a positive claim one way or the other about god's existence. You are arguing against us as if we are, but that's your problem. Atheism is the position of "neutrality." That being said...

They completely balance out.
One is not weightier than the other.

That's not quite true. When it comes to questions such as the existence of god, where neither side is supported by conclusive objective evidence, the rational thing to do is to favor the one which makes the fewest assumptions (Occam's Razor). Because nontheism makes far fewer assumptions than theism, a rational-minded atheist would likely view it as "weightier," while recognizing that both still could be true.

With that in mind, you should now be able to figure out the answer to this:

That being the case, why do you choose one side and apply such significance to it, when it is absolutely balanced on both sides?

Just because neither side is conclusive, doesn't mean they are "absolutely balanced." One side is asking us to accept a lot of unsubstantiated claims, while the other side is asking us to accept virtually none.

I am an atheist -- I don't accept positive claims of god's existence, nor of god's nonexistence. I think it more likely that he/she/it does not exist, but I remain forever willing to accept whichever side is more rationally tenable. As far as I can tell from their posts here, everyone else you are arguing against is in the same boat as me. The sooner you can understand the true stance of the atheist, the sooner we can stop going in these pointless circles.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of going in circles, you have (of course) ignored this post entirely. Touring Mars quite handily pointed out the self-contradiction present in your own words. You've employed your now-typical tactic of refusing to acknowledge or respond to his rebuttal.

This is a big reason why we can't get anywhere in this thread. You make a claim, someone rebuts it, and you run away, finding some strawman to focus on instead. This goes on a couple more times, until you finally loop back around and go through the same arguments again. Which are rebutted again. Which you ignore again. And around and around we go.

For discussions to move ahead, people need to be willing to resolve inconsistencies when they are pointed out. If someone points out a flaw in your argument that you can't defend, don't run away from it - acknowledge that you're wrong and adjust your view accordingly. If you can defend it, then do so with a direct response that clears up the inconsistencies. Ignoring it, then looping back to it down the road, is pointless, and it's intellectual cowardice.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And in what I believe isn't no one's concern but mine.

Then don't toss yourself into a discussion about it.

 

[Danoff]

If you do not believe the gun will fire when the trigger is pulled, you have to believe it will fire.

I think you mean "if you do not believe the gun will not fire, you have to believe it will fire", I will respond to that.

You're doing it again, misusing the word believe. I want you to substitute the phrase "believe with 100% confidence and absolute absurdness" for "believe". That is the only definition that makes sense in this thread.

Here is my position on both subjections:

I do not believe the gun will fire when the trigger is pulled.
I do not believe the gun will NOT fire when the trigger is pulled.

Now I want you to substitute the phrase I gave you to decode this into the proper definition of believe before you claim these are contradictory statements:

I do not believe with 100% confidence and absolute absurdness that the gun will fire when the trigger is pulled.
I do not believe with 100% confidence and absolute absurdness that the gun will NOT fire when the trigger is pulled.

Now you can see exactly why these are not contradictory statements, and it summarizes my position on the gun. Here is my position (and the position of any atheist) on God:

I do not believe that your God exists.
I do not believe that no God exists.

Now here again I want you to substitute the phrase I gave you to see how this is not a contradictory:

I do not believe with 100% confidence and absolute absurdness that your God exists.
I do not believe with 100% confidence and absolute absurdness that no God exists.

This is my position, it does not contradict, and it is the position of all atheists. Incidentally this is my position on almost any subject, whether it's a gun firing, the sun coming up tomorrow, or God. So you can see now how I live without belief*.


*Other than that I exist, where existence is carefully defined.

 

[Craze63AMG]

Honestly, I don't believe in a "God" the way book-based religions do.

I believe, however, that any kind of reference to "God" or other form of higher power is instead an interpretation of the ever-exapnding Universe, and that the Universe itself is a force that is incomprehensible by humans, and that there are "Universal Limits" that extend beyond simple physical laws.

 

[Touring Mars]

There are only two outcomes possible.

There may only be two possible outcomes when the trigger is pulled - the gun will either fire or it won't - but that doesn't mean that there is only two options when it comes to considering what will happen when the trigger is pulled... the statement below* is therefore false:

If you do not believe the gun will (not) fire when the trigger is pulled, you have to believe it will fire. There is no other option.

Wrong - there is a third option, which is that you do not believe either thing, as Danoff has just explained - again.

When it comes to anticipating the outcome of the trigger pull, the only way you can be wrong is by adopting one of the two belief options you have described. If you believe the gun will fire, and then it doesn't, then your belief is proved wrong. Similarly, if you believe the gun will not fire, and then it does, then your belief is proved wrong. The possibility of either belief being wrong is finite and unavoidable. The only way to avoid being wrong at all is by adopting the third option and reject belief altogether.

Consider a similar predicament in terms of betting instead of belief. Would you bet your life savings on the toss of a coin? What you are saying about belief is akin to saying "you must either bet on heads or you must bet on tails" - the counter-argument is that the only way to be certain of holding on to your money is if you don't bet at all, since that is the only way to avoid being wrong.


* Even with Danoff's correction applied, I still think you have misworded it somewhat. The phrase "If you do not believe the gun will (not) fire when the trigger is pulled, you have to believe it will fire" is not the same as "you either believe the gun will not fire or you must believe the gun will fire".

 

[dxld]

How's this relevant to the GTP? 👎

And in what I believe isn't no one's concern but mine.

This relates to GTP because the Jewish people relate to Adam Sandler and Sony Corp. Polyphony Digital is a Sony Subsidiary, and since Gran Turismo is created by Polyphony, it all goes back to Adam Sandler , Christ, king David, Moses, and Abraham. The Muslims call Abraham Ibrahim.

Roman Chariot Races also fit in here somewhere but I'm too lazy to explain it.

 

[orimarc]

...so...

Adam Sandler is the Jewish incarnation of God or am I missing something?

 

[dxld]

...so...

Adam Sandler is the Jewish incarnation of God or am I missing something?

Yes you are missing a lot, I also said the Jewish people are like the Boston Celtics with 17 NBA Championships.

But seriously Jews represent God, but they are not Gods. They make God proud by their achievements.

Maybe my Boston Celtics and Jews analogy does not make sense. I guess what I'm trying to say is through the Celtics we can Love Basketball, and through the Jews we can Love God. But really you can like any team to fall in love with Basketball.

Any race can Love God, but its amazing to see how Jews have succeeded in so many ways despite all the bad stuff they have been through.

 

[Imari]

Maybe my Boston Celtics and Jews analogy does not make sense. I guess what I'm trying to say is through the Celtics we can Love Basketball, and through the Jews we can Love God. But really you can like any team to fall in love with Basketball.

Any race can Love God, but its amazing to see how Jews have succeeded in so many ways despite all the bad stuff they have been through.

Because no other groups of people have been through bad stuff.

Statistically, eventually there was going to be a group of people that got **** handed to them on a platter and still did well. It's not really evident of much at all.

I don't see why anyone needs to love God through the Jews. Why not love God yourself, directly? Do you need some sort of intermediary? I thought he was supposed to be more or less available to everyone?

 

[dxld]

Because no other groups of people have been through bad stuff.

Statistically, eventually there was going to be a group of people that got **** handed to them on a platter and still did well. It's not really evident of much at all.

I don't see why anyone needs to love God through the Jews. Why not love God yourself, directly? Do you need some sort of intermediary? I thought he was supposed to be more or less available to everyone?

I did state that we can Love/Believe in God on our own without the need of following the Jews, this is where being a Gentile(a non- Jew) comes into play. The problem with going directly to God is like flying a ship into the Sun, you will die. Moses himself collapsed when he heard the voice of God.

 

[Imari]

The problem with going directly to God is like flying a ship into the Sun, you will die.

Wow, that sounds like someone I'd like to be associated with. Attempt to worship him and die for not being a Jew. Fail to worship him and be cast into hell.

That can't be the deal, surely.

 

[dxld]

Wow, that sounds like someone I'd like to be associated with. Attempt to worship him and die for not being a Jew. Fail to worship him and be cast into hell.

That can't be the deal, surely.

Being a Jew is not necessary for entering Heaven, but
the hatred of Jews that will send a person to hell.

The deal with Jews and Jewish Law is to live a life bound by rules, to live a good life. The Ten Commandments were the first written instruction manuals to living life.

Jesus is the only man that followed Jewish Law to the Letter. The big twist was the Jews themselves did not believe he is God in the flesh.

As long as a Jew did his best to follow the rules of Jewish Law he would not face punishment.

Non-Jews had a different deal when Jesus Christ came, A Non-Jewish Gentile in a way has more slack, they still follow the Jewish Law, but through Christ they are saved from punishment from the rules they break.

I guess we can use Basketball as an analogy again, and look at the Boston Celtics with Bill Russell and the Chicago Bulls with Michael Jordan. The ways the Celtics played Basketball is OLD Testament rules. The Way Michael Jordan and the Bulls played were similar to Boston in some respects, but they improved upon the Celtics methods and came up with New Testament Rules.

Jewish Law and Christian Law are two sides of the same coin, hence the term Judeo-Christianity....


Moderator edit: please don't double-post - use the edit button instead

 

[Touring Mars]

@dxld - please use the edit button to add to your previous post rather than double-posting.

 

[doctorrg]

[snip]
I do not believe with 100% confidence and absolute absurdness that your God exists.
I do not believe with 100% confidence and absolute absurdness that no God exists.

This is my position, it does not contradict, and it is the position of all atheists.

I think I slowly start to figure why I've never called myself an atheist, I simply cannot hold this position, which, apparently, is the position of all atheists.

I, for one, know (for all intents and purposes) that the God of the Bible (in its literal interpretation) does not exist. I cannot possibly hold any position of lack of belief that such God does exist. It's a meaningless position to me, given my knowledge that such God does not exist.

Incidentally this is my position on almost any subject, whether it's a gun firing, the sun coming up tomorrow, or God. So you can see now how I live without belief*.


*Other than that I exist, where existence is carefully defined.

If I would have to doubt my knowledge that the God of the Bible (in its literal interpretation) does not exist, I would have to equally doubt my very own existence. As it stands, I don't.

Seeing this precludes me from being an atheist, what exactly does that make me? I mean, in a denominational sense.

 

[DQuaN]

A Nontheist I guess. Are you saying to believe NO god exists?

 

[Famine]

I think I slowly start to figure why I've never called myself an atheist, I simply cannot hold this position, which, apparently, is the position of all atheists.

I, for one, know (for all intents and purposes) that the God of the Bible (in its literal interpretation) does not exist. I cannot possibly hold any position of lack of belief that such God does exist. It's a meaningless position to me, given my knowledge that such God does not exist.

If I would have to doubt my knowledge that the God of the Bible (in its literal interpretation) does not exist, I would have to equally doubt my very own existence. As it stands, I don't.

Seeing this precludes me from being an atheist, what exactly does that make me? I mean, in a denominational sense.

The Biblical description of God precludes that deity from existing (through nonfalsifiability). It's not a belief to say that, so it's not particularly relevant.

However, the deity that came to be described in the Bible may exist but in a form different to the one described - the dudes who wrote it could have got it wrong or exaggerated it (or even if that deity wrote it themselves and bigged themself up a bit).

If you believe that deity does not exist or never existed, you're a nontheist - at least in the context of the "God".
If you believe that deity does or did exist, you're a theist (as above).
If you believe that there's no way to know* whether that deity exists or existed, you're an agnostic (as above).
If you think that deity may exist or may have existed but there's no objective evidence either way*, you're an atheist (as above).

You can, of course, be a theist and a nontheist for different deities. Christians are Godtheists and Allahnontheists. Hindus are Shivatheists and Jehovahnontheists. But agnostics and atheists are pretty uniform no matter what the deity being talked about is - and commonly this also extends into mythical creatures, superstitions and intangible crockery.


* On the face of it, these look the same. However agnosticism requires a specific belief that you cannot ever know, while atheism simply requires that present knowledge means you do not know but future knowledge may allow you to know.

 

[doctorrg]

A Nontheist I guess. Are you saying to believe NO god exists?

All depends on what you mean by God. In a more general sense, no, I'm not saying that I believe NO God exists. I've heard the word God used by some to refer to something I most certainly know exists. I've absolutely heard the word God used by some to refer to something I know doesn't. I've equally heard the word God used to refer to something I've got absolutely no idea about. I guess the bottom line is, depending on a particular understanding of God, we may well have enough properties of a particular God, properties which are subject to analysis, allowing us to place the question of its existence within the domain of knowledge, as opposed to belief.

However, the deity that came to be described in the Bible may exist but in a form different to the one described - the dudes who wrote it could have got it wrong or exaggerated it (or even if that deity wrote it themselves and bigged themself up a bit).

If you believe that deity does not exist or never existed, you're a nontheist - at least in the context of the "God".
If you believe that deity does or did exist, you're a theist (as above).
If you believe that there's no way to know* whether that deity exists or existed, you're an agnostic (as above).
If you think that deity may exist or may have existed but there's no objective evidence either way*, you're an atheist (as above).

I don't even agree with the first paragraph. If that "deity" in the Bible may exist in a different form, how would we even know that it still is a "deity" in any meaningful sense of the term? To even make judgement with respect to any "deity" here makes no sense to me at all. I guess that means I'm neither of the above?

Edit: That said, if you replace deity with just a plain old something (whatever it then may be), then I most certainly am an agnostic.

Re-Edit: No, I would still not be an agnostic, because it would be wrong to say that I believe that there's no way to know*, I'd actually know* that there's no way to know*.

[*] for all intents and purposes

 

[DQuaN]

The Sky Pixie that watches us 24/7 and created the universe and then flooded earth and had us all descend from a man and woman that had two sons.

Or Thor. I like Thor.

 

[Carbonox]

The Sky Pixie that watches us 24/7 and created the universe and then flooded earth and had us all descend from a man and woman that had two sons.

Or Thor. I like Thor.

Spend your life fighting against evil and gain a place in Valhalla.

Sounds like a better deal than anything Christianity has to offer.

 

[phonyk]

If there is an afterlife I really hope it is Valhalla. Just continuous feasting, fighting, and lovemaking. The three Fs. Definitely sounds infinitely better than clouds and golden harps, or raping a thousand virgins.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

For the gun, yes. You don't know which will happen. Should you choose to only go by fact, you won't believe an outcome will happen either. So you could believe that the gun will fire, that it won't, or not believe anything. This is a perfect case for demonstrating a lack of belief.

"I do not believe the gun will fire" =/= "I believe the gun will not fire"

That also backs up just what I said.
If there is no belief, then "The gun may or maynot fire".
"God may or maynot exist."

As pointed out myriad times, objective evidence is independent of belief. It is not a statement of belief to say that the Biblical (or Qu'ranic) account of your deity's powers render them non-falsifiable, nor that falsifiability is a requirement of objective evidence, nor that objective evidence is a requirement of existence.

That doesn't answer the question, and is inconsistent with your position.
If you are truly dependant on science to provide the basis for your belief, then the only position you can legitimately take is that of "no belief", not "belief", since science has no objective evidence either way.

It is, however, a statement of belief to say that objective evidence is not a barrier to existence.

I have to assume you mean, "the absense of objective evidence is not a barrier to existence."
Since that is the situation as described.
Is that the case?

Thus, insofar as your specific deity as described exists, you are a theist and I am an atheist. For deities other than your specific one, you are a nontheist and I am an atheist. For deities in general you are a monotheist and I am an atheist.

You can see how your position changes depending on the deity and mine does not. This naturally leads on to your own question...... which you should be asking yourself.

You might ask yourself, if a change in label changes the position.
To save time, no it doesn't.
My position is the same.

The atheist picks no sides. However, theists regularly flip-flop between picking the side of their deity and the side against other deities, becoming nontheists when their belief is applied to other religions. It's particularly weird when it comes to Abrahamic religion - God, Jahweh and Allah are almost identical in description (Jahweh and God more so), to the point that it's almost baffling a Christian monotheist will argue against the existence of Allah.

Thats a simple one.
I don't know Allah.

If I may revisit Russell's Teapot (as DQuaN alludes to above):
There is no objective evidence for a fluorescent, invisible, intangible teapot orbiting your head.
There is no objective evidence against a fluorescent, invisible, intangible teapot orbiting your head.
In your world, the existence of the teapot simply boils down to personal choice. Teapottists believe the teapot exists, nonteapottists believe it doesn't exist. I'm sure wars would be fought.

In your world the obvious answer should be "no belief".

In mine, if there were millions of people who testified that it exists.
I would recognize that for what it is. Evidence for existence.

From that point forward, it would be up to me to investigate that evidence, to see if I could determine for myself, if there is any validity to it.

Ateapottists will point out that the properties of the teapot are nonfalsifiable and the teapot cannot exist in our universe in this form - but they can't preclude the existence of the teapot in some form we simply don't know about yet. They don't believe in the teapot, but nor do they believe it doesn't exist - they simply have no belief.

That being the case, the Ateapottists position can only be legitimately stated as:

"The teapot may, or maynot exist."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know this would be technically off topic, but this is GTP also.
I'm about to bust to ask this, so maybe yall can include just a brief comment when posting.
What do you think of GT6, thus far? [/quote]

 

[Imari]

From that point forward, it would be up to me to investigate that evidence, to see if I could determine for myself, if there is any validity to it.

So does this mean that one of these days you're actually going to share what your evidence for God is? You know, so that we could do what you just described?

 

[Famine]

That doesn't answer the question, and is inconsistent with your position.

Nope. Re-read.

If you are truly dependant on science to provide the basis for your belief

There is no belief.

then the only position you can legitimately take is that of "no belief"

Yes.

not "belief", since science has no objective evidence either way.

You seem to have misread the entire paragraph you quoted.

I have to assume you mean, "the absense of objective evidence is not a barrier to existence."
Since that is the situation as described.
Is that the case?

You've misread that one too.

You might ask yourself, if a change in label changes the position.
To save time, no it doesn't.
My position is the same.

Your position changes depending on the deity. You are a theist for the Biblical God. You are a nontheist for Allah...

Thats a simple one.
I don't know Allah.

See?

You're also a nontheist for Jehovah, Jahweh, Shiva, Odin, Zeus, Jupiter and Ishtar. In fact you're a nontheist for every deity but one.

In your world the obvious answer should be "no belief".

That's the only rational position, yes.

Do you have a different position? Are you a Teapottist or a Nonteapottist, perchance?

In mine, if there were millions of people who testified that it exists.
I would recognize that for what it is. Evidence for existence.

It's actually evidence of testimony - but you refuse to recognise that. If I were to testify that there was indeed a fluorescent, invisible, intangible teapot orbitting my head, it'd not be evidence that the teapot exists.

That being the case, the Ateapottists position can only be legitimately stated as:

"The teapot may, or maynot exist."

You'll be saving yourself a lot of time if you just read what was written instead of rewriting it.


Incidentally, the "may not" is superfluous in that sentence. Pet annoyance of mine.

 

[Pupik]

The problem with going directly to God is like flying a ship into the Sun, you will die. Moses himself collapsed when he heard the voice of God.

No, it means Christians invented middle management.

 

[dxld]

No, it means Christians invented middle management.

John 14:6
New International Version (NIV)

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life.No one comes to the Father except through me."

a Christian invention is your opinion.

 

[Danoff]

I think I slowly start to figure why I've never called myself an atheist, I simply cannot hold this position, which, apparently, is the position of all atheists.

I, for one, know (for all intents and purposes) that the God of the Bible (in its literal interpretation) does not exist.

Your "for all intents and purposes" makes this a statement I can agree with. But philosophically if you have to add it, you don't know, and you're an atheist. It is impossible to know (strictly, without qualifier) almost anything about the universe, or even whether the universe exists. In the strictest sense you can't even know that 1+1=2.

When it comes to 1+1=2, I'm an atheist. I don't believe it is true.

That also backs up just what I said.
If there is no belief, then "The gun may or maynot fire".
"God may or maynot exist."

"The gun may or may not fire" is equivalent to saying "I do not believe the gun will fire" - please use your "believe" decoder ring for this statement.
Likewise "a supreme being may or may not exist" is equivalent to saying "I do not believe a supreme being exists" - please refer again to your decoder ring.

So yes, you finally get it. And no it does not back up anything you've said - you originally claimed that there was no such thing as a state of no belief and that it was impossible to live life without belief. You have since been shown that there is a state of no belief, that you use such a state regularly, and that one can live life without belief. I'll accept apologies at this point, you have conceded the argument.

 

[DQuaN]

Yea and God said to Abraham; "You will kill your son Isaac." And Abraham said, "I can't hear You, you'll have to speak into the microphone." And God said, "I'm sorry, is this better? Check check... check. Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."