Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

You pulled me back in maybe my choice of words was wrong i should have said think there is a possibility instead of believe. If you define religion as a belief in something even if its a belief in a possibility then i'd agree. Although, I think a religion is more 'The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. or A particular system of faith and worship. Also a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion'. Rough quote from oxford dictionary.

An agnostic could be religious, agnosticism isn't a religion based on the belief in the possibility. Another rough quote from same dictionary. 'Agnostic, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God'. They could be religious and think or believe in a god but or just someone who's open to the possibility of god. It does come down to the definition of religion and agnosticism that you follow.

Always when chatting with admin. Hopefully i don't sound like a know it all or pompous. I do enjoy discussions like the one here and trying to use what I've learnt. Or i could be a 'miss educated fool' (Damien Marley).

I wouldn't classify it as a religion, but by the virtue of requiring a belief, agnosticism is more of one than atheism is - as atheism doesn't require a belief (in fact it specifically requires an absence of belief).

Non-theism - the belief that there definitely are no deities - is also more of a religion than atheism is. I wouldn't classify that as a religion either.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[Danoff]

You pulled me back in maybe my choice of words was wrong i should have said think there is a possibility instead of believe. If you define religion as a belief in something even if its a belief in a possibility then i'd agree. Although, I think a religion is more 'The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. or A particular system of faith and worship. Also a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion'. Rough quote from oxford dictionary.

An agnostic could be religious, agnosticism isn't a religion based on the belief in the possibility. Another rough quote from same dictionary. 'Agnostic, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God'. They could be religious and think or believe in a god but or just someone who's open to the possibility of god. It does come down to the definition of religion and agnosticism that you follow.

Always when chatting with admin. Hopefully i don't sound like a know it all or pompous. I do enjoy discussions like the one here and trying to use what I've learnt. Or i could be a 'miss educated fool' (Damien Marley).

Agnosticism (to the best of my knowledge) requires that you believe that it cannot be known whether there is a god ("nothing is known or can be known"). That's a belief. If you're just open to the possibility that god may not exist, you're not necessarily agnostic. You could be, but that's not sufficient to be.

"Open to the possibility" leaves open a lot of possibilities for what to call yourself.

 

[monkeywall]

I wouldn't classify it as a religion, but by the virtue of requiring a belief, agnosticism is more of one than atheism is - as atheism doesn't require a belief (in fact it specifically requires an absence of belief).

Non-theism - the belief that there definitely are no deities - is also more of a religion than atheism is. I wouldn't classify that as a religion either.

Can we agree then that it's more a definition of belief rather than being a religion?

Agnosticism (to the best of my knowledge) requires that you believe that it cannot be known whether there is a god ("nothing is known or can be known"). That's a belief. If you're just open to the possibility that god may not exist, you're not necessarily agnostic. You could be, but that's not sufficient to be.

"Open to the possibility" leaves open a lot of possibilities for what to call yourself.

I'd agree, yes open to the possibility there is no god (or there is a god) isn't really agnosticism. It does require more, the belief that nothing is known or can be known. There is a possibility we may finally prove a god exists but we can't know for sure at the moment. It requires faith to actually believe in the existence of a god or gods etc. Although some could and have argued there is evidence, some would say that evidence isn't conclusive or is subjective.

I class myself as agnostic because

We simply don't and may never be able to know 100% that there is a God. We don't have the intellect at current, maybe we will in the future maybe we won't.

Also open to the possibility does kinda leave open a lot of things as to what to call yourself. Although, By calling or defining yourself (myself) as agnostic doesn't necessarily leave you open to a lot of possibilities for want to call yourself. Because an agnostic has defined or called themselves such.

It is from the belief, in short, that we can never know 100% if there really is a god that i think with the current evidence and arguments for and against it, when trying to answer the OP's question we just end up going in circles.

 

[Imari]

We all should like good stories, and mystery is the heart of any good story.

Just because a story is good doesn't mean that it's historically true. One can quite easily separate the stories that may be fictional but provide entertainment or insight from the things that are true descriptions of the world we live in. Indeed, it's quite useful to do so as otherwise you'll be thought of as gullible or insane.

Obviously the big bang was a one time event. It cannot be reproduced. And is not testable or falsifiable.

Incorrect, unless you've got some evidence you'd like to provide to substantiate that claim.

If it happened, it can happen again. It can be tested in many ways, ranging from observing the consequent effects and ruling out other classes of events that could have happened, to straight up recreating a big bang.

"Sometimes a beautiful, useful or necessary lie is preferable to an ugly truth".

The funny thing is that you seem to find truths about the world not to be beautiful. The universe is an amazing thing, and the fact that it doesn't all collapse in on itself in a ball of energy and gravity even more so. Why lie to yourself instead of looking for the beautiful truths that are out there?

Without religion, morals are useless.

How so? I'm not religious or a member of any religion, and yet I hold my morals very dearly and find them to be a key component of how I choose to live my live.

 

[Rallywagon]

Wait, who says the big bang is not testable? https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html
https://www.informationweek.com/servers/physicists-start-testing-big-bang-theory/d/d-id/1071827?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Without religion, morals are useless.

That's very interesting - can you give an example of a moral standpoint that can only be held by someone who believes in a god?

 

[Rallywagon]

That's very interesting - can you give an example of a moral standpoint that can only be held by someone who believes in a god?

Thou shalt not blaspheme. Literally both an idea and a moral that doesnt exist without religion.

 

[polysmut]

Thou shalt not blaspheme. Literally both an idea and a moral that doesnt exist without religion.

I can't see how that's a moral. A social construct maybe?

Edit: Is the whole concept of morality a social construct anyway? Rights too?

 

[TexRex]

Thou shalt not blaspheme. Literally both an idea and a moral that doesnt exist without religion.

I can't see how that's a moral. A social construct maybe?

That poses an intriguing thought: "Why should one not engage in blasphemy?"

Presumably it would be avoided so as to not offend a deity. Would such a being be that petty? If one is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful, it seems to me it would have a thicker skin than that.

Edit: It seems more likely that those truly behind the construct are concerned that such behavior might undermine the message.

 

[Dotini]

I can't see how that's a moral. A social construct maybe?

Edit: Is the whole concept of morality a social construct anyway? Rights too?

Good question. But objective morality and objective rights have their adherents.

 

[Joey D]

I can't see how that's a moral. A social construct maybe?

Edit: Is the whole concept of morality a social construct anyway? Rights too?

Yup, morals are a social construct.

 

[TexRex]

Edit: Is the whole concept of morality a social construct anyway?

I suspect that depends greatly on what answer one is inclined to choose in the poll.

As someone who doesn't really believe in a deity...I'd say it is.

 

[Dotini]

Yup, morals are a social construct.

@MrTree has indicated a preference for objective morality, and @Danoff for objective rights.

 

[Rallywagon]

I can't see how that's a moral. A social construct maybe?

Edit: Is the whole concept of morality a social construct anyway? Rights too?

Yeah, well, we werent the ones high as a kite on a DMT trip. That said, blasphemy would absolutely be a moral imperative to someone whom is religious. As to the question in the edit... rights i think spawn from morals, and perhaps morals are both a social construct but also help construct society.

That poses an intriguing thought: "Why should one not engage in blasphemy?"

Why not indeed...

Presumably it would be avoided so as to not offend a deity. Would such a being be that petty? If one is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful, it seems to me it would have a thicker skin than that.

the definition for the sheep. I have wondered how religious people reconcile the hypocrisy of worshipping a jealous, petty god that demands its adherents to not be jealous and petty.

Edit: It seems more likely that those truly behind the construct are concerned that such behavior might undermine the message.

Ahh, and here i believe we have gotten to the real answer. Questioning the maker and his word, well what might you question besides...

 

[Joey D]

@MrTree has indicated a preference for objective morality, and @Danoff for objective rights.

Ok?

I didn't say anything about rights since I know it's debatable. But morals are definitely a construct of culture.

 

[Dotini]

morals are definitely a construct of culture.

Because I have read The Song of Ice and Fire series by George RR Martin, I'm in the gray area on this one.

A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way.

For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them.

Moral statements are basically statements of value. Some value statements are clearly subjective: "Tabasco flavored ice cream tastes good" can be true for me, but false for you.

The challenge for finding an objective morality (independent of God) is to somehow demonstrate that a moral statement like "Helping others is good" or "Raping is bad" is true independently of the observer or subject of the statement.

There are ways to do this without resorting to God. One example is Kant, with his famous categorical imperatives. His approach to making morality objective rests on idea of whether a course of action can be applied in any situation whatsoever. If so then, it is true in all cases, and it is (objectively) moral.

Another approach is utilitarianism, where instead of trying to analyze the act itself, you measure the outcome: Which course of action leads to the greatest good for the greatest number of people? The objectivity for utilitarians comes from the statistical nature of the way goodness is assessed. Although the outcome of the act is subjective for each person, the overall truth of the statement depends on summing the value of the outcome for all people, and becomes objective that way.

In practice, both Kantian and utilitarian ethics have their challenges, but they are good starting points for an objective morality independent of God (or Gods).

 

[TexRex]

Because I have read The Song of Ice and Fire series by George RR Martin, I'm in the gray area on this one.

Consulting the experts, then?

 

[Mr Tree]

As you say, atheists do not believe, while agnostics do believe - thus agnosticism is, as @Danoff says, more of a religion than atheism.

What is your (and others) opinion on a less strict defenition of agnosticism? I consider myself an agnostic atheist. As I don't believe in a god, yet I won't make the claim god doesn't exist.

I also believe you can be an agnostic theist. As nosticism is a claim about knowledge.

I'd be a six on 'the scale of dawkins' if you've ever heard about it. 1 beeing a full blown theist absolutely sure there isba god and 7 beeing I'm absolutely sure there isn't a god.

Ok?

I didn't say anything about rights since I know it's debatable. But morals are definitely a construct of culture.

But are they? What we adhere to as morals are it's our current consensus of what we consider the best guidelines to promote welbeeing as a species.

Now morality itself could very well be objective. (I'm on the fence ans haven't fully made up my mind)

Why would morality be objective? Well morality is the set of rules we live by to create more wellbeeing. That means to every issue there is a single best (not perfect) answer as how to achieve this. Granted we do not posses the knowledge to say this is the right answer but that is irrelevant as wheter we know the right answer ot not there would be a correct answer.

An analogy would be economics. A lot of diffrent solutions are proposed to get out of a rescession. We have many possible solutions as we don't yet know what the best solution is. Yet I think we all believe there is a correct way to solve said issue.

If this interests you check out Sam Harris. He's a briliant speaker who claims morality is objective.

Consulting the experts, then?

Thing is there is no current scientific consensus on this. There are experts claiming subjectivety and cultural relativism. And there are experts claiming objective morality.


PS Sorry for blatant spelling mistakes I'm currently on a phone and some of the words I even have difficulty spelling in my native languague.

 

[Famine]

What is your (and others) opinion on a less strict defenition of agnosticism? I consider myself an agnostic atheist. As I don't believe in a god, yet I won't make the claim god doesn't exist.

That would still be an atheist.

Theism - Belief in a deity
Atheism - No belief in deities
Nontheism - Belief in no deities

Agnosticism is a belief too. It is, very specifically, the belief that there can be no knowledge either way.

It's very difficult to cross agnosticism with theism or nontheism. Belief and knowledge aren't same thing, certainly, but belief in a deity doesn't seem compatible with the belief that you can't know if there is one or not. Similarly belief that there isn't a deity doesn't seem compatible with the belief that you can't know if there is one or not. Believers in either scenario are often unshakeable and will claim to know that there is a deity, or that there isn't. I don't think I've ever heard of a believer saying "I believe in my deity 100%, but I can't know if he's real or not".

Agnosticism isn't really very compatible with atheism either. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a statement: "I don't know". Agnosticism isn't a statement, it's a belief: "I can't know". However, it certainly seems possible that people can arrive at the conclusion that they don't know if there's a deity, because they can't know if there's a deity; it just seems short-sighted to rule out the possibility of us ever knowing these things.

 

[MatskiMonk]

That would still be an atheist.

Theism - Belief in a deity
Atheism - No belief in deities
Nontheism - Belief in no deities

Agnosticism is a belief too. It is, very specifically, the belief that there can be no knowledge either way.

It's very difficult to cross agnosticism with theism or nontheism. Belief and knowledge aren't same thing, certainly, but belief in a deity doesn't seem compatible with the belief that you can't know if there is one or not. Similarly belief that there isn't a deity doesn't seem compatible with the belief that you can't know if there is one or not. Believers in either scenario are often unshakeable and will claim to know that there is a deity, or that there isn't. I don't think I've ever heard of a believer saying "I believe in my deity 100%, but I can't know if he's real or not".

Agnosticism isn't really very compatible with atheism either. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a statement: "I don't know". Agnosticism isn't a statement, it's a belief: "I can't know". However, it certainly seems possible that people can arrive at the conclusion that they don't know if there's a deity, because they can't know if there's a deity; it just seems short-sighted to rule out the possibility of us ever knowing these things.

Belief in a god as the creator of a simulation that does not allow us to prove the simulation exists? Agnostic Theist? Pretty sure I've seen people on-line discussing that aas an option.

 

[TheCracker]

I never really understood Agnosticism as a religious stand point. Believing that we'll never know if there is a god or gods seems at odds with the fact that to be agnostic you must be seeing an issue with the truth around religious beliefs in the first place.

If you are unconvinced that gods exist and that the religion that has built up around that belief of said deity must therefore be a construct of man - then why fear the possibility of there being a god or gods?

I don't feel it's something you can sit on the fence about. You either don't believe in gods or you do. If you are open to the possibility of gods existing then you are simply a non-practising member of whatever religion or religious environment you were brought up in. You must still hold enough of that fear-of-god in youto not fully break away from the concept.

An agnostic is really just a god-fearing atheist.

If you believe that as humans we'll never know whether the tooth fairy exists or not, then really you do still believe in the tooth fairy.

 

[Dotini]

Agnosticism isn't really very compatible with atheism either. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a statement: "I don't know". Agnosticism isn't a statement, it's a belief: "I can't know". However, it certainly seems possible that people can arrive at the conclusion that they don't know if there's a deity, because they can't know if there's a deity; it just seems short-sighted to rule out the possibility of us ever knowing these things.

Under what conceivable circumstances would it be possible to know these things?

 

[Mr Tree]

That would still be an atheist.

Theism - Belief in a deity
Atheism - No belief in deities
Nontheism - Belief in no deities

Agnosticism is a belief too. It is, very specifically, the belief that there can be no knowledge either way.

It's very difficult to cross agnosticism with theism or nontheism. Belief and knowledge aren't same thing, certainly, but belief in a deity doesn't seem compatible with the belief that you can't know if there is one or not. Similarly belief that there isn't a deity doesn't seem compatible with the belief that you can't know if there is one or not. Believers in either scenario are often unshakeable and will claim to know that there is a deity, or that there isn't. I don't think I've ever heard of a believer saying "I believe in my deity 100%, but I can't know if he's real or not".

Agnosticism isn't really very compatible with atheism either. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a statement: "I don't know". Agnosticism isn't a statement, it's a belief: "I can't know". However, it certainly seems possible that people can arrive at the conclusion that they don't know if there's a deity, because they can't know if there's a deity; it just seems short-sighted to rule out the possibility of us ever knowing these things.

I see agnosticism a bit diffrent. I can't know there in no god (as it most often is an unfalsefiable claim and if not they often just move the goalpost) I don't see why agnosticism should only be I believe we can't know. Just not knowing would suffice for me to use the term agnosticism.

If we see them as rigid aren't we beeing dishonnest about our perspective towards a god. I see it as a spectrum (see the dawkins scale) i find that the way you define agnosticism implies a 50-50 % chance of it beeing true and untrue. I find this to be lacking information on my position.

Now if we see these terms as 2 diffrent things that aren't mutually exclusive. One can lean more towards believing in a god but acknowledging he can't know for sure. And vise versa. This opens up the conversation to see how far on a side of the spectrum on is.

Is this just semantics? Should I adopt your defenition on agnosticism and if so why?

Edit: What you claim to be atheism the statement I don't know is what I consider agnosticism.
What I would call atheism is the lack of believe in a god. This is seperate from knowing.

 

[TexRex]

Thing is there is no current scientific consensus on this. There are experts claiming subjectivety and cultural relativism. And there are experts claiming objective morality.

Yeah, that was a snide response to the implication that works of banal fiction provide cause to question the origin of morals.

I find it hard to believe a deity imbued its creations with a moral compass. It's much easier to believe that morality developed over time, being closely linked to empathy, by observing how the actions of ourselves or those around us affected others.

 

[Mr Tree]

Yeah, that was a snide response to the implication that works of banal fiction provide cause to question the origin of morals.

I find it hard to believe a deity imbued its creations with a moral compass. It's much easier to believe that morality developed over time, being closely linked to empathy, by observing how the actions of ourselves or those around us affected others.

I realised what it was just couldn't help reacting to it. I do disagree that a work of fiction can't be part of the reason you start questioning about how we see things (in this case morality).

Also I do not believe a creator exists let alone he gave us morality... Why do you think that?

 

[Dotini]

Yeah, that was a snide response to the implication that works of banal fiction provide cause to question the origin of morals.

I find it hard to believe a deity imbued its creations with a moral compass. It's much easier to believe that morality developed over time, being closely linked to empathy, by observing how the actions of ourselves or those around us affected others.

I'm surprised you didn't know that George RR Martin is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal and feminist. His many prize-winning works have been admired by critics, scholars and readers (particularly women), for their treatment of moral ambiguity. His works are beginning to be taught at college level.

But I do agree with your remark on the origin of morality, as would, I think, Martin.

 

[Mr Tree]

I know we humans do not possess the highest level of intelligence and consciousness. I believe there is something out there - I have no idea what *- with more of both. I believe we can know more about this something. So, I'm not a theist, and I'm not an atheist, nor am I nontheist. If I can't be an agnostic because I deny that we can't have knowledge either way, then what am I, a dissenting agnostic?

*could be nature, god, AI holography, whatever.

How can a creature with more consciousness be nature or ai holography or whatever?

You defined it a creature. Now if you take that back I'd still ask how can it not be a creature? What posseses consciesness that's not a creature?

Also why do you believe there is (or has to be) something more conscious/intelligent then us?

Edit: I'm just interested in what you believe and why. I just reread my post and didn't realise it was so direct and straightforward that it could rub you the wrong way.

 

[TexRex]

I do disagree that a work of fiction can't be part of the reason you start questioning about how we see things (in this case morality).

I didn't say it's not possible.

Also I do not believe a creator exists let alone he gave us morality... Why do you think that?

I don't know how to answer this. I wasn't addressing your remark with that statement, I was establishing my perspective...and I don't believe that.

His works are beginning to be taught at college level.

God help us.

 

[Mr Tree]

I didn't say it's not possible.


I don't know how to answer this. I wasn't addressing your remark with that statement, I was establishing my perspective...and I don't believe that.


God help us.

You'd best answer it like you did explaining I made a wrong assumption.

But excluding morality coming from a god(like) entity doesn't mean it's subjective.

I take it you do believe it's subjective?