Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

God help us.

Agreed! Too much liberalism is taught at colleges. You and I both demand equal time for conservatives.

 

[Danoff]

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.

The fact that there may be a spectrum of belief doesn't eliminate the need for clearly defined terms so that we can actually communicate about where someone falls on the spectrum. There is a spectrum of male and female characteristics, but we still need the terms male and female (clearly defined according to chromosome) to start a conversation.

Each one of the terms illustrates a "sentiment" that is distinct from the other (but not necessarily incompatible). For example:

Atheism - I don't buy it
Non-theism - Gods are a lie
Theism - My god is real
Agnosticism - There's no way to tell.

Like @Famine said, you can arrive at "I don't buy it", because "there's no way to tell". But it seems short sighted to say "there's no way to tell" when you could say "I don't buy it" to that as well. So agnostic atheists, while possible, seem like they should be less common.

 

[TexRex]

I take it you do believe it's subjective?

Clearly.

Too much liberalism is taught at colleges. You and I both demand equal time for conservatives.

 

[Dotini]

You left off my sarcasm emoji!

Anyway, as you are an admitted liberal, it is significant that you would trash a widely known and respected liberal in order to gain the satisfaction of an admittedly snide comment. And I'm probably not much less liberal than you. And morality can be agonizingly ambiguous, considering the complications we humans get ourselves into.

 

[Famine]

Should I adopt your defenition on agnosticism and if so why?

The Greek word "agnostos" literally means "not to be known" or "unknowable". An agnostic is someone who believes that something is unknowable, and agnosticism is a belief that something is not knowable.

Believing something is not knowable is a belief, because there's no evidence that anything real can be unknowable.

 

[Dotini]

The Greek word "agnostos" literally means "not to be known" or "unknowable". An agnostic is someone who believes that something is unknowable, and agnosticism is a belief that something is not knowable.

Believing something is not knowable is a belief, because there's no evidence that anything real can be unknowable.

That's really quite a profound statement: Nothing real is unknowable. But maybe it begs the question, what its real?
Per wiki: "Reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible."

 

[TexRex]

Anyway, as you are an admitted liberal, it is significant that you would trash a widely known and respected liberal in order to gain the satisfaction of an admittedly snide comment.

Is that significance diminished or amplified by my not caring about his political bent? I'm actually quite fond of the works I've viewed of Tom Hanks (apart from The Bonfire of the Vanities...ugh), and I don't particularly care about his, either.

 

[Dotini]

Is that significance diminished or amplified by my not caring about his political bent? I'm actually quite fond of the works I've viewed of Tom Hanks (apart from The Bonfire of the Vanities...ugh), and I don't particularly care about his, either.

It his morality you should care about. The decisions taken by people under conflicting circumstances - morality - is what Martin has said is the only thing worth writing about. And the reason why so many people find his works so riveting.

 

[Mr Tree]

The Greek word "agnostos" literally means "not to be known" or "unknowable". An agnostic is someone who believes that something is unknowable, and agnosticism is a belief that something is not knowable.

Believing something is not knowable is a belief, because there's no evidence that anything real can be unknowable.

Well fair enough. Just a heads up a lot of 'new atheists' oppose your defenition. Beware of misunderstanding others and beware of beeing misunderstood.
Imo as long as we are able to make ourself undstood clearly I don't care whoch defenition I should follow

Also how would you describe someone who believes in god yet says I don't know?

Also as an atheist, as in 'i don't believe in the godclaims', how can we not be agnostic then? As the godclaim often is unfalsefiable it means can't know? I feel I'm missing something here and am beeing stupid...

 

[Danoff]

Also as an atheist, as in 'i don't believe in the godclaims', how can we not be agnostic then? As the godclaim often is unfalsefiable it means can't know? I feel I'm missing something here and am beeing stupid...

I think if I told you that there is an invisible pink unicorn in your room right now that cannot be sensed by any means that will ever exist, you would tell me that you both don't believe me and believe that it is impossible to know. They're kinda separate inquiries. For the first you'd need evidence, for the 2nd you're evaluating the claim itself and concluding that the claim can never be shown to be true or false.

 

[Famine]

Also how would you describe someone who believes in god yet says I don't know?

They would be a theist, just not of any specific deity.

Also as an atheist, as in 'i don't believe in the godclaims', how can we not be agnostic then? As the godclaim often is unfalsefiable it means can't know?

"Non-falsifiable" is pretty much a byword for "made up bunk".

It's also worth noting that a theist can also be a non-theist. Someone who believes that Christian God is real also specifically believes that Muslim God is not real. It's quite good fun when you get down to the sects of each religion who will wholeheartedly agree that the religion's deity is real, but wildly disagree on what it is that deity wants them to do about it - thus believing that their sect's deity is real but the other sect's is false...

 

[Mr Tree]

I think if I told you that there is an invisible pink unicorn in your room right now that cannot be sensed by any means that will ever exist, you would tell me that you both don't believe me and believe that it is impossible to know. They're kinda separate inquiries. For the first you'd need evidence, for the 2nd you're evaluating the claim itself and concluding that the claim can never be shown to be true or false.

Well that's how I see it yet I think @Famine doesn't.

So I'm wondering if we miss some nuance here.

They would be a theist, just not of any specific deity.

"Non-falsifiable" is pretty much a byword for "made up bunk".

It's also worth noting that a theist can also be a non-theist. Someone who believes that Christian God is real also specifically believes that Muslim God is not real. It's quite good fun when you get down to the sects of each religion who will wholeheartedly agree that the religion's deity is real, but wildly disagree on what it is that deity wants them to do about it - thus believing that their sect's deity is real but the other sect's is false...

On the first point, said theist would you still consider him an agnostic too?
If not how do we distinguish a theist who claims to know god is real and one who merely believes he's real.

On the made up bunk, I totally agree that's kind of what unfalsifiable is. But when we actually say we know it doesn't it mean we make a positive claim and we carry the burden of proof. So in principle we don't know and can't know, that's why I brought up the Dawkins scale in my first post.

 

[Rallywagon]

Question. Why was it ok for god to kill 42 children by sending two bears to eat them for calling someone a baldhead? Especially considering the whole, turn the other cheek teachings? And... how did two bears catch and kill 42 kids?

 

[Liquid]

Question. Why was it ok for god to kill 42 children by sending two bears to eat them for calling someone a baldhead? Especially considering the whole, turn the other cheek teachings? And... how did two bears catch and kill 42 kids?

Because the Bible is wildly contradictory and fantasist; it is not to be held as a standard bearer or basis for law.

 

[Rallywagon]

Hmmm. I should have specified that no logical answers need apply. I am curious the life lesson being taught. Two female bears clearly aren't going to rip up 42 kids. I mean, what, did they just line up abs wait their turn to be mauled? Is obviously one of those metaphor passages. But what for? If you tease someone as a joke you should expect outrageous over reaction? That you are justified in killing/having killed a crap load of people if teased?

 

[TexRex]

Because the Bible is wildly contradictory and fantasist; it is not to be held as a standard bearer or basis for law.

I See what you did there.

 

[Imari]

Hmmm. I should have specified that no logical answers need apply. I am curious the life lesson being taught. Two female bears clearly aren't going to rip up 42 kids. I mean, what, did they just line up abs wait their turn to be mauled? Is obviously one of those metaphor passages. But what for? If you tease someone as a joke you should expect outrageous over reaction? That you are justified in killing/having killed a crap load of people if teased?

Remember that the Bible is largely a mashup/remix of a lot of older stories. And there's obviously some big differences in tone between the old and new testaments.

If you take any given story alone, you can see how some group of people might think that it was an appropriate moralistic tale. I mean, getting killed by a bear for insulting someone is OTT, but if you allow for artistic license and some exciting hyperbole it gets the point across: don't be a dick to others or bad things will happen.

It's just that all the stories aren't from the same group of people, and so there's a lot of contradiction. These stories weren't designed to fit together as a single cohesive logical whole. They're just stuff that was around that got tweaked into the appropriate Christian iconography where necessary and added to the big book.

 

[Danoff]

I mean, getting killed by a bear for insulting someone is OTT,

OTT stands for Old Testament Tough

 

[Imari]

OTT stands for Old Testament Tough

Kids these days don't know how good they've got it. When I was young we used to have to cut off our own legs to have roast on Christmas. Uphill. Both ways.

 

[TexRex]

Kids these days don't know how good they've got it. When I was young we used to have to cut off our own legs to have roast on Christmas. Uphill. Both ways.

In three feet of snow and the blistering heat.

 

[Exorcet]

In three feet of snow and the blistering heat.

Those Venus winters.

 

[Strittan]

Do I believe there's something higher than us or like a god? Sure.

Do I believe in god as in Religion god? [censored] That [censored].

Do I believe there's something higher than us or like a god? [censored] That [censored].

 

[Imari]

Do I believe there's something higher than us or like a god? [censored] That [censored].

Why not? If you shift perspectives we're pretty godlike to smaller creatures. You could even argue that modern humans are pretty godlike to prehistoric humans, sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic and all.

It seems totally plausible to me that there could be a more developed race out there that has abilities that we would commonly label as godlike.

 

[TexRex]

If you shift perspectives we're pretty godlike to smaller creatures. You could even argue that modern humans are pretty godlike to prehistoric humans, sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic and all.

And it's this notion that I believe sheds considerable light on the creation of the God myth.

Clearly we are not gods, but it's easy to see how a being with a presumably more tenuous grasp on the mechanics of its environment could not understand how we do what we do, and therefor impose a supernatural explanation.

Early civilizations probably (let it be known I'm no historian or paleoanthropologist) couldn't explain day and night cycles, weather or geological phenomenon, so they attributed these to the workings of a deity--perhaps even one for each.

It seems totally plausible to me that there could be a more developed race out there that has abilities that we would commonly label as godlike.

Of course we would probably think it malevolent--what with how we treat lifeforms that are "beneath" us--and would probably end up trying to wipe it out in one swell foop.

 

[Dotini]

Of course we would probably think it malevolent...

Some dualists, like Manicheans and Gnostics, thought the god of the material universe was indeed malevolent, their souls literally imprisoned in matter.

 

[Imari]

And it's this notion that I believe sheds considerable light on the creation of the God myth.

Clearly we are not gods, but it's easy to see how a being with a presumably more tenuous grasp on the mechanics of its environment could not understand how we do what we do, and therefor impose a supernatural explanation.

Early civilizations probably (let it be known I'm no historian or paleoanthropologist) couldn't explain day and night cycles, weather or geological phenomenon, so they attributed these to the workings of a deity--perhaps even one for each.

Oh, absolutely. And you still see people do this all the time, and not just with God. If you ask most people about something, they'll try and throw out some explanation about how it works. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, probably more so because I love knowing how things work so much I made it my profession*.

Just as our brains are wired to throw together visual patterns even when none exist, they're also wired to try and throw together mechanisms where there simply isn't the information to support one. Probably because from a survival perspective attempting any sort of understanding is better than none; hell, you might be the one caveman who hits on the right answer by blind luck.

But in modern times, we don't have the survival pressure to have to randomly guess at answers. And at our level of knowledge now that's insufficient anyway, a deeper understanding is required than "charcoal and volcanic residue and urine salts go bang". You don't get jet aircraft and solar panels and microchips by inspired guessing.

And this is where intuition comes in to kick us in the goolies. Intuition is what gives people those random answers. Intuition can be a fantastic thing, particularly a training intuition, but it can also be profoundly misleading. I think what gets a lot of people is that they're not prepared to abandon what "feels" right. I suspect that people who aren't in technical professions probably don't run up against that many situations where their intuition is proven to be clearly and massively incorrect.

The scientific method allows for intuition and inspired guessing, but you still have to go back afterwards and explain why it works. As I've told many a production manager, getting rid of a problem is great but if you don't understand how you got rid of it then it's just going to happen again. And that's the problem with the old, intuitive mindset; it stops where it gets something that works, no matter how insane the mechanism might sound. And unfortunately, things like "God" can explain absolutely everything despite being at odds with any number of observations about our universe.

*I should note though that because it's my profession to know and find out how certain things work, I'm very cautious when making statements to distinguish between what is a well-founded mechanism that I could demonstrate, what is an educated guess, and what is being pulled out of my backside. I have the privilege that while I'm not particularly high ranking in the company I do have unique skills and experience, and so if I say I don't know something I tend not to get crap for it because likely nobody knows.

Of course we would probably think it malevolent--what with how we treat lifeforms that are "beneath" us--and would probably end up trying to wipe it out in one swell foop.

Which could be a correct choice, depending on whether they actually are malevolent. Perhaps truly advanced life forms only get that far on the bones of lesser life forms. But it's sort of impossible to know until we actually have at least one example to observe. Until then it's like the Drake Equation, all well and good as an example of logic but completely useless without some actual numbers to put in there.

Some dualists, like Manicheans and Gnostics, thought the god of the material universe was indeed malevolent, their souls literally imprisoned in matter.

Some people think that the Abrahamic God is malevolent, if one assumes that the descriptions of his past treatment of humanity and his stated attitude towards them is accurate. Simply claiming benevolence isn't enough to make it so if one's actions do not also support that claim.

 

[Strittan]

Why not? If you shift perspectives we're pretty godlike to smaller creatures. You could even argue that modern humans are pretty godlike to prehistoric humans, sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic and all.

It seems totally plausible to me that there could be a more developed race out there that has abilities that we would commonly label as godlike.

Well, when you put it like that, my comment was a bit harsh I guess. It’s an interesting thought.

 

[Mr Tree]

Why not? If you shift perspectives we're pretty godlike to smaller creatures. You could even argue that modern humans are pretty godlike to prehistoric humans, sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic and all.

It seems totally plausible to me that there could be a more developed race out there that has abilities that we would commonly label as godlike.

Well, when you put it like that, my comment was a bit harsh I guess. It’s an interesting thought.

@Imari
I disagree that there would be a race we consider godlike. It highly depends on the defenition of godlike you'd use, but if we go for the defenition you seem to use here, creatures with knowledge we can't (yet) comprehend, then I don't see how the meaning godlike still means something.

A lot of people seem to believe creation over evolution. They just can't comprehend the evolutionary mechanism so why don't they consider the biologists gods? In practice they even disagree with the biologists. So I don't see how our lack of understanding would make them godlike, it would make us ignorant compared to said race. We've come from far enough to know they're not gods and have to posses some knowledge we don't.

So no there is nothing of higher power then us. Higher knowledge yes but that doesn't make it godlike imo.

 

[TheCracker]

@Imari
I disagree that there would be a race we consider godlike. It highly depends on the defenition of godlike you'd use, but if we go for the defenition you seem to use here, creatures with knowledge we can't (yet) comprehend, then I don't see how the meaning godlike still means something.

So no there is nothing of higher power then us. Higher knowledge yes but that doesn't make it godlike imo.

But if that 'race' was to manifest itself to us in a form we can't comprehend - say a collective presence that has no physical form, then we could still consider it to be god-like.

 

[Mr Tree]

But if that 'race' was to manifest itself to us in a form we can't comprehend - say a collective presence that has no physical form, then we could still consider it to be god-like.

If it manifests we can 'measure' something about it. What's godlike about it then?

We can't really comprehend qauntum mechanics but we understand some of the outcomes of it's mechanics. Yet we don't say it's godlike.