Does God exist?

[Double_Blade]

Haha, anybody remember when PoseyJMac tried to argue that atheism was a religion?

Man, that guy was such a dick. I'm glad he's banned.

Who is he? Can gimme his profile? I know it's not an important question but Im just out of curiousity.

And to you guys out there. Please remember that ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION! Atheism means that it's a human thinking that there is no God at all. Religion is saying that there is God but not atheism.

 

[Jintor]

Where do agnostics fit into this equasion?

Are they on the 'just in case' side?

 

[Solaris]

I don't get it.
Agnosticism doesn't need to be an option.
The question is 'Do you believe in God?': yes, no.
It's one or the other, you might not be sure what you believe in, but I think at some level you do.

 

[Ludah]

I don't get it.
Agnosticism doesn't need to be an option.
The question is 'Do you believe in God?': yes, no.
It's one or the other, you might not be sure what you believe in, but I think at some level you do.

Pretty much. Take aliens for example. It's not like you "half-way" believe in them. You either do or you don't. There's just no sensical middle ground between those two options. You might have some doubts, or you may eventually change your position, but you invariably lean towards one or the other.

 

[DreadLord]

Haha, anybody remember when PoseyJMac tried to argue that atheism was a religion?

Man, that guy was such a dick. I'm glad he's banned.

Yeah he was a real pain in the ass. I hated him. I miss Absinthe though. ;(

 

[Yuri]

1.) I never insulted your intelligence or anything about you. Perhaps that's your own indignation.

2.) Neither atheism or agnosticism are religions.

3.) I merely said agnosticism isn't comparable to atheism. You challenged that, and I naturally replied. Honestly, what the hell did you expect?

4.) I'm sorry, did I make you uncomfortable when I "hassled" you for misrepresenting the fundamenetals of atheism? You can't say shit like "there is no such thing as agnostic atheism" and expect me (an agnostic atheist) to just stay tight-lipped about it, especially when you straw-man my belief, or lack thereof.

But of course, you eventually decided to take the mockery route "lol i dun liek arguing about werds". Why? I don't know. I would think it would be easy to at least acknowledge the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but you never did such a thing.

Yay, you win.

When I said "list my religion as" I meant "list my religious preference as." You know, when you fill out forms and you can choose Atheist or Agnostic (sometimes?)

I am not a professor of the English Grammars, nor of theology, so I am sorry. I just find it simpler to not say Agnostic Athiest and instead say Agnostics believe you can't know, and Atheists believe there is no god. That's how it is in my head, so I'm sorry that I tried to push that into you.

And you were being pretty insulting near the end, ya can't deny that. ;(

I personally believe that it is possible that a higher being created this universe to watch humanity from afar, or just left entirely, or simply does not exist. I don't know at all, nor does anyone I know of. Since there is no way to prove this, I don't think it has any bearing on my life and just choose to not let if affect my life. That is why I consider myself Agnostic, that is why I can't vote in this thread. Why does one have to be definate about everything? There is no "just in case" involved...

 

[Ludah]

I will admit to being a smartass, but that was only after you did the "I don't like arguing about words, have fun" bit.

But whatever. I won't persist any further and I concede that for the sake of convenience, one can treat atheism and agnosticism as existing on the same spectrum. Just recognize that when it comes down to the nitty gritty, some people do take issue with those simplified definitions.

 

[Sparda]

God is a woman, No doubt.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I don't get it.
Agnosticism doesn't need to be an option.
The question is 'Do you believe in God?': yes, no.
It's one or the other, you might not be sure what you believe in, but I think at some level you do.

You and I are standing outside a room. I tell you there's a ball in the room. You personally do not know if there is a ball in the room, you're just going off by what I said. Seconds later, someone else comes up to you and says there is no ball in the room.

10 minutes later, someone comes up to you and asks you if there's a ball in the room. Your reply would be "I don't really know..."
"Do you believe there is a ball in the room?"
"Well one guy says there is, another guy says there isn't. I'll just have to investigate for myself."

Agnosticism isn't a "just in case." If any of the major religions are true, we go to hell as well. Agnostics don't believe there is enough evidence to suggest whether a God exists or not. You can be an Agnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Theist, or just a plain old Agnostic. Before you can ask me if I believe there is a God, I'd have to tell you I don't believe there is enough evidence to decide.

And that's all I'm going to say about that. I get enough bullshit from Atheists and Theists trying to tell me "Oh you're just an Atheist/Theist in denial," or "Agnosticism is just weak Atheism. Pussy." I deal with it everywhere I go, I'm not going to deal with it here :|.

 

[Yuri]

Heh, thanks DEM

 

[DeusExMachina]

No problem

 

[Qonfused]

FFS. I can see a 10 page thread of flames.

I win.

(The other 3 pages I can forsee.)

 

[Ludah]

Agnosticism isn't a "just in case." If any of the major religions are true, we go to hell as well. Agnostics don't believe there is enough evidence to suggest whether a God exists or not. You can be an Agnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Theist, or just a plain old Agnostic. Before you can ask me if I believe there is a God, I'd have to tell you I don't believe there is enough evidence to decide.

It doesn't matter if you think there isn't enough evidence or not. You invariably lead to a belief in gods or do not. If gods do not factor into your life in any way, then it's a very good chance that you are an atheist.

As much as I would love to debate this further, I'd prefer not to due to my own lack of free time and preoccupation with other matters.

I simply ask that you read the links that I have provided.

They are not long. They are not difficult. You should be able to understand them with relative ease. If you still have concerns, address them here.

There is no such thing as a "plain old agnostic". At least not in any specific regards to theism.

To go a step further...

Why do you insist on treating two separate schools of thought as comparable?

A rationale for this is seriously required.

 

[Ikerous]

You and I are standing outside a room. I tell you there's a ball in the room. You personally do not know if there is a ball in the room, you're just going off by what I said. Seconds later, someone else comes up to you and says there is no ball in the room.

10 minutes later, someone comes up to you and asks you if there's a ball in the room. Your reply would be "I don't really know..."
"Do you believe there is a ball in the room?"
"Well one guy says there is, another guy says there isn't. I'll just have to investigate for myself."

Agnosticism isn't a "just in case." If any of the major religions are true, we go to hell as well. Agnostics don't believe there is enough evidence to suggest whether a God exists or not. You can be an Agnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Theist, or just a plain old Agnostic. Before you can ask me if I believe there is a God, I'd have to tell you I don't believe there is enough evidence to decide.

And that's all I'm going to say about that. I get enough bullshit from Atheists and Theists trying to tell me "Oh you're just an Atheist/Theist in denial," or "Agnosticism is just weak Atheism. Pussy." I deal with it everywhere I go, I'm not going to deal with it here :|.

Now what if someone asked you if you believe in unicorns? Or witches?
Would you say that you don't have enough evidence to decide?
If not, what makes it any different?

Although I agree with you; agnostic and athiest are quite different.

 

[spookymooky]

Just because you have sources doesn't make it fact, or else I could've finished this thread with a link to an online Bible on page 1.

 

[Cole]

No....

And what is faith? Faith vs Logic.
If I drop a 10,000 pound ball and a 5 pound ball on a planet with no air resistances, a flat bottom, and it has gravity and dropped from the same height. I can have faith that the 10,000 one will hit first, but I know by logic they will hit at the same time.

Sure I can't prove god dosn't exist. But hey you have no logic of any kind that he exists so what does it matter? In order for me to believe something, you have to prove it to me. If you can't prove it to me then your wasting my time. It's not up to me to prove you wrong, because if you can't prove it to me then well according to me your already wrong.

 

[theotherguy]

exactley. I wish more people would take that attitude when it comes to things like this. Not only with religion, but with buisnesses and astrophysics and the like. It doesn't make sense to beleive in something just because people tell you to. There has to be a reason, there has to be proof in both theory and practice that an assertion is true. Otherwise it cannot possibly be held as true. And what cannot possibly be held as true must be held as false, unless there is substantial evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[Apos]

Agnostics don't believe there is enough evidence to suggest whether a God exists or not. You can be an Agnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Theist, or just a plain old Agnostic. Before you can ask me if I believe there is a God, I'd have to tell you I don't believe there is enough evidence to decide.

And that's all I'm going to say about that. I get enough bullshit from Atheists and Theists trying to tell me "Oh you're just an Atheist/Theist in denial," or "Agnosticism is just weak Atheism. Pussy." I deal with it everywhere I go, I'm not going to deal with it here :|.

Well, still, you're wrong. You're either a theist agnostic, or an atheist agnostic. You can't be a plain old agnostic because that dodges the question. Either you believe in God, or you don't. If you aren't sure, then you probably don't.

Are you sure you want to want to jump into the Grand Canyon? If you're not sure, then you haven't yet.

 

[Ikerous]

Well, still, you're wrong. You're either a theist agnostic, or an atheist agnostic. You can't be a plain old agnostic because that dodges the question. Either you believe in God, or you don't. If you aren't sure, then you probably don't.

Are you sure you want to want to jump into the Grand Canyon? If you're not sure, then you haven't yet.

That.. makes absolutely no sense...

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Well, still, you're wrong. You're either a theist agnostic, or an atheist agnostic. You can't be a plain old agnostic because that dodges the question. Either you believe in God, or you don't. If you aren't sure, then you probably don't.

Are you sure you want to want to jump into the Grand Canyon? If you're not sure, then you haven't yet.

I can see what you mean, and it makes sense, BUT!

he can be a pure agnostic if that's what he thinks he is.

It just means he simply hasn't formed an opinion. People like that only believe in what they see or has been proven, but God is such a contraversial matter and through ancient literature has been bludgeoned into absolute mystery.

I think it would help your argument to say he has an innate lean towards one belief, meaning he may want one or the other to be true, but without the ability to form a concrete opinion one cannot be so thusly categorized.

 

[Ikerous]

I can see what you mean, and it makes sense, BUT!

But.. by the very definition of the word.. agnostics are neither athiest or theist...

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

But.. by the very definition of the word.. agnostics are neither athiest or theist...

While this is true, I don't see why there can't be agnostics leaning toward either direction.
There is a difference between what one believes, and what one wants to believe, just as there are those that do not want to be wrong and those that would rather be wrong and happy.

 

[Ikerous]

While this is true, I don't see why there can't be agnostics leaning toward either direction.
There is a difference between what one believes, and what one wants to believe, just as there are those that do not want to be wrong and those that would rather be wrong and happy.

All of that is totally possible

All I'm saying is that "Well, still, you're wrong. You're either a theist agnostic, or an atheist agnostic. You can't be a plain old agnostic because that dodges the question. Either you believe in God, or you don't." Makes absolutely no sense.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

There is no logic behind "dodging the question" being of any significance. If it has no answer, which it doesn't, the question is mostly pointless anyways.
It's kinda like "dodging some random activist" on the street, and someone telling you you are in denial for simply avoiding them.

 

[Jintor]

On a side note, what is the evidence that people use to prove that God does exist? Or is it a matter of faith? Is the use of evidence counted as more scientific than religious?

 

[Ludah]

Just because you have sources doesn't make it fact, or else I could've finished this thread with a link to an online Bible on page 1.

I ask you to read the sources not because I expect you to find them authoritative. I expect you to read them because they make sense. There are no scholarly definitions of agnosticism and atheism that would treat them as comparable.

Sorry, but it is fact.

 

[Ludah]

It just means he simply hasn't formed an opinion. People like that only believe in what they see or has been proven, but God is such a contraversial matter and through ancient literature has been bludgeoned into absolute mystery.

If he hasn't formed an opinion about God, he's an atheist. Why? Because he has no belief in it.

"Plain old agnostics" simply do not exist.

 

[Double_Blade]

I believe in God not because of "because the Bible said so".

I believe in God because I can really feel that he is helping me to seek the truth in life step by step. And I agree, healthy sceptism is the only cure, but sadly christians (I think other religions too.) reject sceptism and just simply said that "because the Bible says so," when being asked where can you prove that God exists.

Sure, reading the Bible is a great book seeks truth in life and teachings of love and care and charity for elderly and the people who needs help. But reading the Bible alone does not help people to know that God exists, we need proof so that we can get the better idea that God exists.

And today, I found one proof that God exists because I saw nature and I was thinking to myself, there are trees, grasses and every living things around us. Humans cannot create nature and I knew that God created it. I thought to myself that.

 

[Ludah]

That's not proof of God...

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

If he hasn't formed an opinion about God, he's an atheist. Why? Because he has no belief in it.

"Plain old agnostics" simply do not exist.

Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. It is not the lack of belief or faith in itself. An atheist simply will not change their mind about the subject whereas an agnostic can be persuaded either way given enough poking.

Interesting how this thread went from "Does God exist" to "Do agnostics exist".

Look at it this way. You cannot prove agnostics do not exist, but I believe they do, and I believe I can prove it through fancy sentence structure.

What about the people that can't be sure? They need some kind of proof that agnostics exist. Are they anti-agnostic just because they don't outright believe they exist? That's a ridiculous assumtpion.

 

[Double_Blade]

That's not proof of God...

Then who created nature? Tell me who then.

Is it martians who created the Earth? If not, then who? I should ask you.

 

[99.vikram]

Who created nature? The laws of physics, that's what!

 

[Ludah]

Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. It is not the lack of belief or faith in itself. An atheist simply will not change their mind about the subject whereas an agnostic can be persuaded either way given enough poking.

Wrong. You have obviously read none of what I've posted.

the·ism - Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Guess what happens when you put the letter "a" in front of that word? It turns into an absence of belief. You are also making additional attributions that are in no way central to atheism. Atheists are no more immune to conversion than any other person.

I really don't see where you're going with the rest of your post. Some stuff about anti-agnosticism (whatever that is) and other things. What's your point?

Then who created nature? Tell me who then.

Is it martians who created the Earth? If not, then who? I should ask you.

I do not pretend to have the knowledge to answer that question.

 

[Apos]

he can be a pure agnostic if that's what he thinks he is.

He can't anymore than he can be a square circle.

It just means he simply hasn't formed an opinion.

Believing in God requires forming an opinion. If he hasn't formed an opinion, then he doesn't believe.

Believing is a VERB, an action that you undertake. If you don't do it.... then you aren't a believer. Why is that confusing to anyone?

Atheism is a belief that God does not exist.

"theism" means god belief. Adding "a" to it implies "without." A - theism = "without god belief." Atheism isn't a belief in itself.

It is not the lack of belief or faith in itself.

That's EXACTLY what "lack of belief" is. Some atheists are hardline, some are agnostic, but all simply lack a belief. You're right that it isn't a faith though. Lacking belief doesn't require anything. Rocks are atheists. So are babies. Things that lack the capacity to believe anything can't believe in God.

An atheist simply will not change their mind about the subject whereas an agnostic can be persuaded either way given enough poking.

Well, by definition, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe: if they changed their mind and believed, then they would cease to be an atheist. It's silly to say that they are someone who "will not" change their mind.

And again: agnostics already believe or don't. They just don't think they have any good way to judge whether or not god exists.

 

[Apos]

But.. by the very definition of the word.. agnostics are neither athiest or theist...

Nonsense. Gnosis means knowing or knowledge. The prefix "a" means without. Agnosticism means without knowledge. Originally, when Huxley first coined the word, he used it to mean the idea that knowing whether or not God existed was impossible. Nowadays, we use the word in a weaker sense: not that knowing is impossible, but that we just don't know.

However, all of that is perpendicular to the question of whether or not you believe in god or not. Not knowing does not PRECLUDE believing.

 

[Solaris]

Then who created nature? Tell me who then.

Is it martians who created the Earth? If not, then who? I should ask you.

.
No-one created nature

 

[Ludah]

I honestly think that the agnostic option is thrown around so much because it seems to have a softer tone than atheism. People want to go for a safe, "rational" middle ground that doesn't earn the ire of believers or non-believers.

 

[Apos]

I believe in God because I can really feel that he is helping me to seek the truth in life step by step.

I think in life, such internal feelings pretty often prove to be pretty unreliable. It's very very easy to convince yourself of something, or interpret some mental process this way or that.

And today, I found one proof that God exists because I saw nature and I was thinking to myself, there are trees, grasses and every living things around us. Humans cannot create nature and I knew that God created it. I thought to myself that.

That doesn't really make sense. What you are doing is begging the question: assuming that someONE must have "created" it. But that's a faulty assumption.

 

[Zeus]

I definitly believe in a god.....maybe not word for word like the bible says, but there is no way something this complex could come along just randomly.

 

[Ludah]

I definitly believe in a god.....maybe not word for word like the bible says, but there is no way something this complex could come along just randomly.

Why do so many people think that the alternative to deities is random chance? How is the constraining force of natural laws random at all?

Besides, it's not like a magic, all-powerful, invisible entity is any more plausible.