The great and all powerful religion thread!

[Cythraul]

I think at least the Judeo-Christian god can be ruled out due to logical paradoxes and contradictory evidence against the Bible/Koran

I would probably agree with that, unless I reject my (almost) thoroughgoing empiricism, which I'm not prepared to do. But that's an entirely different can of worms.

edit: Actually, maybe not. I don't really know what I'm saying anymore.

 

[cookiecutter]

It seems we are in agreement, you are just using agnostic instead of atheist. Atheism to me means a lack of belief, not a belief in a negative (in all cases at least).

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Yes, it seems you are much closer to what Nick and I think of atheism than what we see as agnostic. Thanks for the explanation. It was not retarded at all

 

[Matt]

You and Einstien both.

It's also the basis of Deism, incidentally the religion/philosophy the US was established on.

 

[cookiecutter]

Einstein was an Atheist. He is quoted out of context to make it appear he was a deist. Either way it is not particularly relevant. There are a few great scientists today who still believe in God.

 

[Matt]

Einstein was an Atheist. He is quoted out of context to make it appear he was a deist. Either way it is not particularly relevant. There are a few great scientists today who still believe in God.

There are a lot of religious scientists.

 

[cookiecutter]

The majority today are not, but you are certainly correct.

 

[Matt]

I've been studying Transcendentalism and Unitarianism in my honors class. Both are very interesting, I find myself agreeing with the majority of their philosophies. Deism as well.

 

[Alter]

Einstein was an Atheist. He is quoted out of context to make it appear he was a deist. Either way it is not particularly relevant. There are a few great scientists today who still believe in God.

I dont think you are the right person to make the final statement on what he believed.

 

[cookiecutter]

I apologize, he was actually an agnostic. Still not a deist

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It seems we are in agreement, you are just using agnostic instead of atheist. Atheism to me means a lack of belief, not a belief in a negative (in all cases at least).

Yes, it seems you are much closer to what Nick and I think of atheism than what we see as agnostic. Thanks for the explanation. It was not retarded at all

Um... is it just me or is that definitely NOT what you guys have been arguing in just about every other religious discussion here? I could've sworn you guys were asserting that there is no god, since empirical evidence seems to suggest that there isn't one, and since the concept of a god wouldn't actually serve to explain the origin of the universe (without adding another superfluous causal step).

 

[cookiecutter]

You may have thought that, but as far as god as general concept, I have only argued that belief in it is unjustified. The two ideas are very similar and hard to separate sometimes. As I have stated I think that a good case can be brought to bear supporting the nonexistence of most of the gods of religion, but as far as a deistic god, I only seek to support my lack of belief.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Einstein was an Atheist. He is quoted out of context to make it appear he was a deist. Either way it is not particularly relevant. There are a few great scientists today who still believe in God.

Agnostic, technically. But any god that can exist in a physicists universe is a passive observer and nothing more. Such a god's existence is irrelevant though,

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You may have thought that, but as far as god as general concept, I have only argued that belief in it is unjustified. The two ideas are very similar and hard to separate sometimes. As I have stated I think that a good case can be brought to bear supporting the nonexistence of most of the gods of religion, but as far as a deistic god, I only seek to support my lack of belief.

But that means you're still open to the possibility of a deistic god, which I think makes you an agnostic.

 

[Cythraul]

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

Einstein is my homeboy.

 

[swizzlenuts]

It depends on how you define atheism and agnosticism. Usually agnosticism is nothing more than what one might consider a soft version of atheism. I only accept proposition (1), not both (1) and (2). That is, in an important sense, suspending judgment with respect to the existence of God. I call myself an agnostic to dissociate myself from a certain hard-headed brand of atheism because I think it's unjustified. You can call me an atheist if you want, but I think whatever sort of atheism I can be said to adhere to comes to basically the same thing as agnosticism.

edit: plus I take issue with the idea that there is or can be knowledge regarding these matters. There is, however, an asymmetry between the various relevant propositions. For instance, I do not think there is knowledge of God's existence at this time, but I don't think that it is logically impossible for there to be such knowledge. On the other hand, I do not think there is knowledge of God's nonexistence at this time and I also think that in principle there never can be such knowledge.

I agree with your post, and I think you are an atheist, but you can call yourself whatever you want.

Even though I would say there is no Christian god, but this is just my belief on the evidence given; however, I'm willing to change my belief when evidence arrives. I'm incredibly agnostic in your definition to any other gods not defined, like a deistic or pantheistic. I think we have other evolutionary and abiogenesis explanations where we don't have to go to those gods.

Also, I wanted to provoked a discussion on why people hate the hard headed atheists. Because from reading Dawkins and Harris, I'm pretty sure they agree with you too.

 

[swizzlenuts]

The Romans kept good records, including government-sanctioned executions in the provinces. That included Judaea. It's in the books that a man named Jesus from Nazareth was crucified in the early first century AD. There is also an account by the historian Josephus, who wrote contemporarily to the time of Jesus.

These records you are talking about aren't contemporaries of Jesus, especially Josephus. He wrote about what people believe and about Jesus, but not as a contemporary.

I've never heard this claim about the Romans thing, can you show me where you got this? If possible don't use an apologetic site.

Here is a pretty good debate on Jesus, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/price-rankin/ The claims of Price are pretty strong, and I want to read his book/see his sources because he doesn't have time to show them his evidence or his evidence contrary to the other guy.


Also, I have not read his book or know his arguments very well; I'm also not making the claim that Jesus didn't exist, but what I am saying that it's not a black and white issue.

My personal opinion from reading and hearing people talk about this is that a man named Jesus, probably a preacher, existed, and some stories were made up while using his name.

 

[Zephyrus]

My source is the History Channel. A documentary I saw a couple years ago. It's only natural that my knowledge degnerated a bit since then, but Josephus did write historical accounts of a man named Jesus existing.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

But that means you're still open to the possibility of a deistic god, which I think makes you an agnostic.

There's a very slight difference. Since science cannot attempt to touch God (we created it, but the hypothetical is that the god created us; we cannot defined it therefore using our own pathetic terms EVER), and both Nick and I would only believe if science were able to empirically prove its existence. I don't think this is being "open to the possibility." It is merely setting the standard of conditional belief so impossibly high that we are effectively atheist.

However, IF (eternally infinite "if" here since it will NEVER happen; this is merely hypothetical/conceptual) science were to accurately and empirically prove the existence of God, Nick and I would not be atheist anymore. We would quickly repent and save our souls, you bet. But science can never discover a god. As far as I am concerned, if this god has no effect on our physical world (meaning he is not able to be studied by any science), he might as well not exist; why should we care about powerless things beyond our level of perception?

As for Jesus, I don't really think he is anything that the Bible claims him to be. Those are decently untrustworthy accounts of the guy anyway.

My personal opinion from reading and hearing people talk about this is that a man named Jesus, probably a preacher, existed, and some stories were made up while using his name.

This has always been generally what I thought. I haven't ever challenged this, because I see no need to. Obviously, he could not heal the sick with a touch or walk on water; this was hyperbolic rhetoric by his close friends who saw the preaching he did and elevated him to a higher plane of existence. Like I said, this is what I think...

 

[Zephyrus]

I think the social consensus is that God will reveal himself to us before we can reveal him ourselves.