The great and all powerful religion thread!

Maybe we're getting closer to god all the time in our endless pursuit for technology,I think we might soon hopefully get a glimpse of whatever is behind the creation of infinity
 
vihris-gari said:
Inasmuch as God is an idea created to explain natural phenomena that were once a mystery to people, I'd say there's quite a hell of a lot of similarity between God and fairy tales.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but fairy tales were never intended to explain natural phenomena. I think you mean to say 'myths'. Positing the existence of God at least at one time provided an okay explanation for the order and complexity one sees in the world. People actually were at one time in history fairly well-justified in positing the existence of God (whether they still are is another question). Completely made up stories with no explanatory function at all are not really analogous to God-as-an-explanatory-posit.
 
Cythraul said:
I don't like the way you're distinguishing between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism very clearly has to do with belief. It's a refusal to take either position on an argument (a suspension of judgment) based on epistemological factors.
Click to expand...

I guess if you are using Agnosticism that way, fine.

Why don't you want to take a position given on the evidence now? It's just a huge cop out to say, I refuse to take a position. You can make a judgment whether or not god(s) exist, then say how firm you are on those beliefs. Like, "I'm a very agnostic atheist. I don't think there is a god atm, but there is no proof either way."

I specifically use the term atheism to reject the Ambrahamic religions because they directly involve me.
 
swizzlenuts said:
Why don't you want to take a position given on the evidence now? It's just a huge cop out to say, I refuse to take a position.
Click to expand...

Because the evidence that I have now does not compel me either way, hence my agnosticism. How is that a cop-out? If I'm not compelled to either position by the evidence then the only reasonable alternative is suspension of judgment. I don't see why you or anybody else is bothered by this position.
 
Do you have evidence some of us don't have or something that could lean towards a belief in a god and away from the absolute comprehension that there is no such thing as a god? AFAIK there is NO evidence of God existing or not existing. There is nothing you can say you 100% rely on in terms of "evidence" for the existence/non-existence of a god. Therefore, it makes sense, if you doubt the existence of a god without evidence to support him, to be an atheist who will not change until science or the human scope of logic can fundamentally prove its existence through repeated testing. There's no other objective and/or critical way to test the existence of things, so this is what must be done to finally "prove" god.

You must have some kind of lingering faith which dictates that you do not drift into absolute (with respect to human experience and the incredibly small chance that science can and will somehow touch "God") defiance of the idea of a god existing. I'd suggest you leave this faith since a). it doesn't help you, you're already halfway away from believing, which, to "God" is as good as not believing at all, and b). atheism makes more sense in this case.
 
V.V.V.V.V. said:
...Therefore, it makes sense, if you doubt the existence of a god without evidence to support him, to be an atheist who will not change until science or the human scope of logic can fundamentally prove its existence through repeated testing.
Click to expand...

:zombie:

:lol:

That is so pathetic. You really think that if there is a God who created everything, that his creation is going to be able to comprehend and test for him? You think that a God so comeplex and powerful that he created everything out of nothing and created time is going to fit into a test tube? Yeah, I am being a bit facetious, but it really is ridiculous.

It's obvious that if this God exists, he has decided not to allow it to be evidenced beyong the shadow of a doubt. It seems he is leaving plenty of room for those who decide they don't want to believe to chose that option. He also has given enough so that those who are willing to believe can find him. He seems to want people to come to him of their free will. To lay aside their pride and scepticism and allow him to reveal himself to them.

It is a decision of the will.

If that is your stance, you will never believe.

V.V.V.V.V. said:
You must have some kind of lingering faith which dictates that you do not drift into absolute (with respect to human experience and the incredibly small chance that science can and will somehow touch "God") defiance of the idea of a god existing. I'd suggest you leave this faith since a). it doesn't help you, you're already halfway away from believing, which, to "God" is as good as not believing at all, and b). atheism makes more sense in this case.
Click to expand...

Are you proselytizing for atheism now?

How critical of a decision is it to embrace atheism? It that all of a sudden going to change his life and make everything fall into place? And it is also a decision of the will. The evidence is not going to change, it's only the mind that changes. God has placed the knowledge of himself into each of us, and that is why this whole thing is still an issue. If he had not done that, most of us would have abandoned faith long ago. But there is something that doesn't quite make it that easy.

I think he should open himself up more to the possibility of God, and see if that God is willing to reveal himself to him. No, not in some flash of light, but just over time.
 
cookiecutter said:
But pretend that pink unicorns had a lot of followers. How would you feel then? Also btw your argument is based on a logical fallacy (ad populum).
Click to expand...

Why pretend? Why don't you just give us an equivalent example? I think it's known as precedent.

Maybe you could cry ad populum if I was arguing for the existence of God based on the fact that people follow him, but my only aim was to let the air out of the fairytale comparison.

Stop trying to win arguments that I am not positing.
 
Cythraul said:
Because the evidence that I have now does not compel me either way, hence my agnosticism. How is that a cop-out? If I'm not compelled to either position by the evidence then the only reasonable alternative is suspension of judgment. I don't see why you or anybody else is bothered by this position.
Click to expand...

There is some evidence for the existence of the Christian god?
 
You asked for an equivocal example. Other people worship other gods and they think your beliefs are as silly as you do of theirs. So why is your answer right and their answer wrong? You are an atheist with respect to dozens of other gods, but you accept this one.
 
Necuratul said:
You asked for an equivocal example. Other people worship other gods and they think your beliefs are as silly as you do of theirs. So why is your answer right and their answer wrong? You are an atheist with respect to dozens of other gods, but you accept this one.
Click to expand...

I have not been arguing for the Christian faith, though when referring to God, I have spoken according to my understanding of God (naturally). This has all been about the existence of a supreme being.
 
swizzlenuts said:
I guess if you are using Agnosticism that way, fine.

Why don't you want to take a position given on the evidence now? It's just a huge cop out to say, I refuse to take a position. You can make a judgment whether or not god(s) exist, then say how firm you are on those beliefs. Like, "I'm a very agnostic atheist. I don't think there is a god atm, but there is no proof either way."

I specifically use the term atheism to reject the Ambrahamic religions because they directly involve me.
Click to expand...

You sound like an ignorant jack ass. This isn't like a war that we need to take sides on. These are our beliefs, I personally don't want to say "I know for sure I'm right, with no doubt." because then I sound like a dumb ass. There is no possible way to prove my position and I still have doubts about my own beliefs... therefore I'm agnostic.
You can actually be agnostic and still be a member of another religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MegustaMucho
  • Poll
The Religion thread
Replies
103
Views
2K
CoB Off-topic
vikk
V
pennywiseignite
thoughts about God and Religion?
Replies
15
Views
725
Testament
Kenneth R.
K
H
Yet another religion thread: what constitutes weird?
Replies
315
Views
17K
Dark Tranquillity
Matse
M
S
The UM New Religion Thread
Replies
15
Views
778
The Philosopher
speed
S
PrincessHades
Religious freedom?
Replies
84
Views
10K
The Philosopher
CiG
CiG
Top Bottom
Back