Do you Belive in a God or Not?

[Burn]

I dont beileve in god, not bothered to read the thread but I guess theres ALOT of flameing, allways is in this type of thread.

 

[el Chi]

atheists, agnostics, and christians all have one major thing in common though. they are all, by definition, closeminded and set in their ways.

As opposed to yourself, who flippantly makes broadbrush statements about people whilst, hypocritically, not allowing for the fact that actually yes there might possibly be a gradient involved?
Congratulations on being the epitome of open-mindedness. :hmph:

 

[Gray Fox]

Hey but could you say what i should vote.
because I don't believe in any of the religions, I think they were all made buy megalomaniacs who have nothing to do with god, i mean look at the rules, the wars, the contradictiions. I fail to see how someone as god could possibly be like that. But that said i am someone who follows science and if there is one thing that i do know for sure that is that the universe we live in is probably even more stranger in reallity than we could ever imagine, so the existence of god or even something more wierd or unbelieveble would notr come as a surprise. For me it is 50/50 chance that a god exists. So what sould I vote?

 

[clarky003]

are we talking about 'God' as a personified being. Because I think it's ludicrous that we could think so highly of ourselves, to believe that there is a God that comes in our form, I dont believe in a God, I just seem to think there is more to the Universe, a power that power's it all, perhap's a combined conciousness that gives rise to everything we see.

no offence to believer's of the One God, but thinking it is a he or a she, or a being that takes on an individual phyiscal form, is quite delusional.

 

[Logic]

As opposed to yourself, who flippantly makes broadbrush statements about people whilst, hypocritically, not allowing for the fact that actually yes there might possibly be a gradient involved?
Congratulations on being the epitome of open-mindedness. :hmph:

I think what posey's getting at is the danger inherent in limiting yourself to a predefined set of beliefs and way of thinking. I have noticed that people who consider themselves Atheists or Christians often aren't open to the possibility that they are wrong. Again, that is a generalisation, but I can definately relate to posey's point from experience, and find it to be true more often than not.
__

...I think it's ludicrous that we could think so highly of ourselves, to believe that there is a God that comes in our form...

Exactly.

 

[Neutrino]

atheists, agnostics, and christians all have one major thing in common though. they are all, by definition, closeminded and set in their ways.

atheists close off a realm of possibility by saying they don't believe there is a higher being. agnostics simply don't care enough either way closing off a realm of possbility, and christians trust that god is real AND that he is not lying to them. because hey if god's as powerful and capable as the bible says, he could say one thing and do another and no human could prove otherwise.

i just think its depressing for these people to turn off their brain and think that there is not more truth out there to be found about the world.

Sorry, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Do you even know what an agnostic is?

As opposed to yourself, who flippantly makes broadbrush statements about people whilst, hypocritically, not allowing for the fact that actually yes there might possibly be a gradient involved?
Congratulations on being the epitome of open-mindedness. :hmph:

Nice, el Chi.

 

[Gorgon]

Yes I do.

 

[poseyjmac]

As opposed to yourself, who flippantly makes broadbrush statements about people whilst, hypocritically, not allowing for the fact that actually yes there might possibly be a gradient involved?
Congratulations on being the epitome of open-mindedness. :hmph:

the types of people that are defined in websters dictionary are the ones i made this statement about. can't argue with webster, so you either meet the definition, or you don't. if you don't theres no reason to take offense... im quite aware of the gradient.

 

[joule]

If there was a God, I would believe in him/her/it.

 

[Sprafa]

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

 

[poseyjmac]

Sorry, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Do you even know what an agnostic is?

and thats all you're going to post?

the question is, do you?

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

id rather be an atheist than an agnostic. people that fall under this definition are just plain lazy.

and so agnostics are closeminded because they simply don't care, or don't want to care.

 

[Neutrino]

and thats all you're going to post?

the question is, do you?

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

id rather be an atheist than an agnostic. people that fall under this definition are just plain lazy.

and so agnostics are closeminded because they simply don't care, or don't want to care.

ag·nos·tic

n.

1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.


But thanks for telling me how I think. I wasn't sure, so I'm glad you were able to fill me in on it. :thumbs:

 

[poseyjmac]

ag·nos·tic

n.

1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

so what you are trying to say, is you don't fall under the definition of an agnostic in the websters dictionary, but under a definition in a different nameless dictionary. sounds good to me.

 

[poseyjmac]

But thanks for telling me how I think. I wasn't sure, so I'm glad you were able to fill me in on it. :thumbs:

well i can't gather all the noname dictionaries out there. my statement was true based on webster's definitions.

edit: i see you got your definition from dictionary.com

 

[Murray]

I don't think many people care, but yes, I do believe in God and the christian religion. :angel:

 

[Neutrino]

well i can't gather all the noname dictionaries out there. my statement was true based on webster's definitions.

edit: i see you got your definition from dictionary.com

Fine, from your own post:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

As el Chi tried to point out earlier, people don't always fit exact definitions. There are different levels to everything.

I don't mean to give offense, but do you realize just how arrogant you sound?

 

[clarky003]

One thing I do know is that we are all confused, conciously, everyone try's to justify existance in their own way, religion is only one escape.

Now, the 'Truth' of it all, that's a different matter.

Not knowing why we are, creates insecurity's , which is why I guess people resort to faith's and belief's.

I think it's quite exiting not knowing why we are, and for what purpose and how... we may well find out one day , through ourselves, or through science, or through a combination.

 

[Sprafa]

I do agree with Neutrino there poseyjmac, you sound terribly arrogant,

 

[M1RAG3]

and thats all you're going to post?

the question is, do you?

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

id rather be an atheist than an agnostic. people that fall under this definition are just plain lazy.

and so agnostics are closeminded because they simply don't care, or don't want to care.

That is completely and totally wrong. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson was an agnostic, and if I recall he wrote the Declaration of Independence. And that is quite a lot for a "lazy person", and I think he helped form some country, not quite sure.

Agnostic doesn't mean you are lazy or closed-minded, it just means you are undecided and are constantly questioning the existence of God. Which is more open-minded then either Christians, Atheists, or any set religion/belief system.

 

[ship]

I do agree with Neutrino there poseyjmac, you sound terribly arrogant,

And not only arrogant, but also hypocritical because you're making yourself seem close-minded for speaking before you are informed as to what being atheist and agnostic is.

 

[poseyjmac]

Fine, from your own post:



As el Chi tried to point out earlier, people don't always fit exact definitions. There are different levels to everything.

I don't mean to give offense, but do you realize just how arrogant you sound?

not committed, which is lazy, and inherently closeminded.

my initial statement about those 3 beliefs was based on the definitions found in webster. if you aren't covered in those definitions, theres no reason to be upset. but theres also no reason to be upset if i can't cater to everyone's dictionary, but merriam webster is the authority on the english language. which is why i chose it when i made that statement.

 

[poseyjmac]

That is completely and totally wrong. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson was an agnostic, and if I recall he wrote the Declaration of Independence. And that is quite a lot for a "lazy person", and I think he helped form some country, not quite sure.

Agnostic doesn't mean you are lazy or closed-minded, it just means you are undecided and are constantly questioning the existence of God. Which is more open-minded then either Christians, Atheists, or any set religion/belief system.

lazy in terms of finding the truth in the world. not lazy as in lazy in all respects. don't think so simplemindedly. we are talking about higher beings here, not every day tasks.

as i said before my statement was based off the definitions found in merriam webster, the authority of dictionaries. by other definitions, even i am an agnostic. but i have to find a base somewhere. might as well find it in a reputable authority of language.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Could you please use the edit button.

 

[M1RAG3]

"...lazy in terms of finding the truth in the world."

So seeking to create a new government founded on the principles of freedom, above all freedom of expression (i.e. speech, religion), does not qualify for seeking the truth of world, creating a balanced society beneficial for all?

 

[poseyjmac]

So seeking to create a new government founded on the principles of freedom, above all freedom of expression (i.e. speech, religion), does not qualify for seeking the truth of world, creating a balanced society beneficial for all?

thats nice and all, but it does nothing to further the knowledge of why we are here, what else is out there, what happens after death, etc.. knowledge that most people give up on.

 

[M1RAG3]

But establishing said societies allows for the possibility of open-minded theorys/beliefs to be born from the Everyman. And those who work against such a system are enemies to the progression of man's existance, so please don't tell someone what they are or aren't and what they do or don't believe, dictionary definitions or not, for you nor anyone, (not even "Him") has the right to do so.

 

[NeLi]

Who are you to tell me what I can do or can not do? EH?


...EH?

 

[poseyjmac]

But establishing said societies allows for the possibility of open-minded theorys/beliefs to be born from the Everyman. And those who work against such a system are enemies to the progression of man's existance, so please don't tell someone what they are or aren't and what they do or don't believe, dictionary definitions or not, for you nor anyone, (not even "Him") has the right to do so.

in my initial statement, i haven't told anyone specifically what they are or what they aren't, i made my statement to those who meet the definitions from websters dictionary. if you don't meet the criteria, you shouldn't be concerned...yet some here are. very interesting.

 

[Letters]

lazy in terms of finding the truth in the world.

Since when is truth tied to a belief system?


And what happened to you the past couple/few months? All I ever see you post is garbage anymore.

 

[M1RAG3]

Ok, nevermind, this is starting to become an argument, which should not happen, and I apologize if any of my comments has/have prompted or continued said disputes. Let us return to the topic at hand concerning the existence of a "God"/deity/supreme being.

 

[poseyjmac]

Since when is truth tied to a belief system?


And what happened to you the past couple/few months? All I ever see you post is garbage anymore.

if you can't PROVE that im posting garbage, no offense, but you are out of your league and need to step down.

my statement was entirely true of people that meet the definitions in websters dictionary. if you don't meet those definitions, then there is no reason to be up in arms.

Ok, nevermind, this is starting to become an argument, which should not happen, and I apologize if any of my comments has/have prompted or continued said disputes. Let us return to the topic at hand concerning the existence of a "God"/deity/supreme being.

im not the one arguing with something that can't be won. my initial statement stands. and stands true i might add

 

[M1RAG3]

Poseyjmac, please don't be so forceful with your posts, you sound as if you are all knowing, or just come off that way. And I think, (and I believe others also), you are better then that. Just don't shoot down people so quickly or so fast and leave open the possibilities of new ideas to influence your own convictions.

And regarding the point that discussing "God" is pointless. Well, if that is pointless, then using the highest powers and abilities of one's mind in order to solve an infinitely complex puzzle/mystery is render useless. And those I personally see no point in living. Also, if there is a "God", and he created us, he created us with the ability to think freely, freewill, then would not his intentions be to discuss his existance?

EDIT: Poseyjmac, that was not intented to be a "personal attack", just my opinion on what i am seeing and feeling. So I may be totally wrong. All ask is that you think. However, do as you will for this is a public forum.

 

[Rebecca]

Yeh I do.

 

[poseyjmac]

poseyjmac, please don't be so forceful with your posts, you sound as if you are all knowing, or just come off that way. And I think, (and I believe others also), you are better then that. Just don't shoot down people so quickly or so fast and leave open the possibilities of new ideas to influence your own convictions.

better than confident? i am?

remember, im as open-minded as can be, but you have to provide a convincing argument. although my initial statement is invincible, yes you may think im arrogant for saying that, but its based off websters dictionary meanings. you can't argue with that directly, all you can say is 'no that definition doesn't fit me'.

And regarding the point that discussing "God" is pointless. Well, if that is pointless, then using the highest powers and abilities of one's mind in order to solve an infinitely complex puzzle/mystery is render useless. And those I personally see no point in living. Also, if there is a "God", and he created us, he created us with the ability to think freely, freewill, then would not his intentions be to discuss his existance?

if you want to address a point i made, you must quote it first.

 

[Neutrino]

not committed, which is lazy, and inherently closeminded.

What are you talking about? Now you're saying that if you don't commit yourself to a single belief than your lazy and closeminded? Now you're not even making any sense.

if you can't PROVE that im posting garbage, no offense, but you are out of your league and need to step down.

Wow. Just wow. That was completely uncalled for. Seriously, you post as if you know everything and everyone else is an idiot. Again, I'm not trying to be offensive, but please just look at how you're writing things. Just something to think about.

Edit: fixed your quote for you. I don't see how it changed anything.

 

[poseyjmac]

What are you talking about? Now you're saying that if you don't commit yourself to a single belief than your lazy and closeminded? Now you're not even making any sense.
.

no, thats not what i said. try again, but this time ask the question and wait for an answer instead of making an assumption.

Wow. Just wow. That was completely uncalled for.

if you can't PROVE that im posting garbage, no offense, but you are out of your league and need to step down.

thats really low, man. but no THIS above is what i said. i said, no offense first. stop rearranging my sentences to make me out to be a bad person. this is a tactic people use when they reach the bottom of the barrel of arguments. dont' turn this thread into personal attacks.

 

[M1RAG3]

Guys, guys. Let's stop bickering, all is forgiven. I really don't care what people say, as long as they don't ridicule or belittle another's beliefs. So let's just pretend this whole thing never happened, and return to the topic and continue discussing it, for I happen to be very intrigued by such discussions.

Bascially, we all have our opinions, and each is ture to oneself, unless they are founded upon hate or discrimination.

"Can't we all just get along?" :E

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Perhaps posey, if you took on a more forthcoming attitude, people would react in such a way towards you. I don't really know you, but reading through this thread very much gives me an impression that you are an utterly arrogant person.
Maybe you aren't but thats not the point, the point is that of the impression you give off. Just try to bare that in mind.

 

[poseyjmac]

Perhaps posey, if you took on a more forthcoming attitude, people would react in such a way towards you. I don't really know you, but reading through this thread very much gives me an impression that you are an utterly arrogant person.

you aren't the first one to call me arrogant. you also aren't the first one to have no argument to back that statement up.

 

[Alig]

No - also this should be banned from talking about because some people do and some dont and those that do feel so strongly that god exsists that it usually ends in a flame war and it unproove-able on both sides.

But it does lean towards god not exsisting because i can say "look god isnt there" and he actually _isnt there_ where as you cant say "look theres god" when he isnt.