Does God exist?

[DeusExMachina]

I dont believe in religion, as i liek to do my own this & believe in what i want to belive in. MOst religions u have to follow rules, if you break these rules? They will either kill you or kick you out. Its abit like whats happeing in C17, but without the religion.

Which religions exactly are you talking about?

 

[Saketi]

Which religions exactly are you talking about?

well the religion mostly in the middle east. I've read a few stories of children been killed, or their hand cut off etc etc, disgusting things bcos the ppl broke the rules.

 

[Ludah]

Hahahaha.

Man, I hope you lead an interesting life as the intolerant, narrowminded, egotistical asshole that you are.

I think my time is better spent just laughing at your general stupidity.

LOL

It's great how following logic and treating words by their scholarly, official definitions qualifies for ignorance, egoism, and being narrowminded.

Erestheux, you're wrong. But when somebody comes along and points to the faults in your reasoning, you lunge straight into an attack mode consisting of shallow dismissals in the vainest of attempts to save face.

Apos consistently shows he knows what he's talking about, time and time again, topic to topic. Reply to me in whatever way you wish, but you better have a damn good reason for calling Apos, of all people, stupid.

 

[99.vikram]

Would someone please attack the argument instead of the person who presented it?

 

[Yuri]

LOL

It's great how following logic and treating words by their scholarly, official definitions qualifies for ignorance, egoism, and being narrowminded.

Erestheux, you're wrong. But when somebody comes along and points to the faults in your reasoning, you lunge straight into an attack mode consisting of shallow dismissals in the vainest of attempts to save face.

Apos consistently shows he knows what he's talking about, time and time again, topic to topic. Reply to me in whatever way you wish, but you better have a damn good reason for calling Apos, of all people, stupid.

I called him stupid because I'm not wrong about my own beliefs, and I couldn't possibly be wrong, nor could anyone in the topic at hand. Trying to make me out to be some sort of lost child when I know what my beliefs is egotistical and narrowminded. Trying to tell me what I believe is outright, undenyably stupid.

There is no argument to attack, people are telling me what I think and what I believe for some strange, bizarre, stupid reason. I don't know why they think they are so high and mighty. There is nothing to defend against just stupid bullshit, you never "proved" anything, you just dug yourself deeper into that pit of complete and utter ignorance.

Just do yourself a favor and drop it. What did you plan on accomplishing with your little rants anyways? To prove that I don't believe what I say I believe? Good job, psycho. :rolling:



I don't give a **** what you want to call me, okay, but I will stick with Agnostic, as I do not fall into either of the catagories you two seem to be hellbent over. I'm sure it gives you ejaculatory pleasure to constantly put people down, but for the sake of everyone, just shut the f*ck up and don't tell me what I believe, don't tell me that I'm not allowed to believe that, don't tell me that I "haven't made up my mind" and don't tell me that you know more than me.

I was offended by you and Apos' utter bullshit and so I got mad, and when I get mad, I tend to insult people who insulted me. Neither of you have authority over what I believe and what you can classify me as (even such, you aren't just arguing definitions, you're arguing that what I believe "cannot exist"). So kindly shut the flying f*ck up.

 

[Sulkdodds]

So anyway, I was in this pub and -

Ahem.

 

[Ludah]

I called him stupid because I'm not wrong about my own beliefs, and I couldn't possibly be wrong, nor could anyone in the topic at hand. Trying to make me out to be some sort of lost child when I know what my beliefs is egotistical and narrowminded. Trying to tell me what I believe is outright, undenyably stupid.

No, you ARE wrong when you warp or ignore the proper definitions of things.

You ARE wrong when you defy the logical continuum of atheism and theism.

You are not being told what to believe. You are being told to apply the proper definitons. If you do not hold a belief in a god, you are an atheist. If you are not sure about wether or not a god exists, you are still an atheist. Atheism is the absence of a god belief. It's that simple. But you still fervently and erroneously cling to this "plain old agnostic" label which is logically impossible.

There is no argument to attack, people are telling me what I think and what I believe for some strange, bizarre, stupid reason. I don't know why they think they are so high and mighty. There is nothing to defend against just stupid bullshit, you never "proved" anything, you just dug yourself deeper into that pit of complete and utter ignorance.

Utter and complete ignorance? If anything, I attempted to pull you out of your own wallow of self-imposed delusions.

I am not telling you what to believe. I'm telling what you do believe, and pointing out how you define yourself is inconsistent with it. There's nothing high and mighty about accepting the logical, scholarly, and sensical definitions of theism and gnosis. My guess is that your absurdly volatile reaction is due to your own indignation.

Just do yourself a favor and drop it. What did you plan on accomplishing with your little rants anyways? To prove that I don't believe what I say I believe? Good job, psycho. :rolling:

Actually, at this point I'm deriving entertainment from watch you bang your head against your own intellectual barriers, spewing insults and disdain at anybody at people who have obviously done more reading and research into this subject than you have.

It's positively ****ing brilliant that you can tell me to drop it, but you dedicated an entire post to bashing Apos. Very classy. Bravo.

I don't give a **** what you want to call me, okay, but I will stick with Agnostic, as I do not fall into either of the catagories you two seem to be hellbent over.

You do fall into one of the two. Wether or not you're willing to accept that is another issue. Again, willful delusions.

Let's see:

1.) You do not read the sources provided, or at least do not acknowledge them.
2.) You ignore the proper, official, scholarly definitions and the very mechanics of language itself.
3.) Your replies either consist of outright dismissals, hollow sarcasm, or insults.

Jesus Christ, you get into a topic about God and then get pissy at others for pointing out your mistakes. If you can't be assed to read up on a few things before taking part in such a subject, then don't bother at all. And you are in no position to accuse others of being insulting or rude when nearly all of your replies have more consistently and pervasively contained such qualities.

 

[Yuri]

Whatever you say, cheif.

I hope you had multiple orgasms with that one. :thumbs:


All I wanted was an extra option in the poll for my religious preference. Thanks for the lecture, sir!

 

[Ludah]

You can put up your smilies and spout sarcasm all you want. Doesn't make you any less wrong, and it certainly doesn't hide the fact that you are obviously irritated. Your last post showed that.

Saving face ftw

 

[CrazyHarij]

christ.. dont you guys have anything more important, or at least more worthwile, to do?

 

[Yuri]

You can put up your smilies and spout sarcasm all you want. Doesn't make you any less wrong, and it certainly doesn't hide the fact that you are obviously irritated. Your last post showed that.

Saving face ftw

Uhh, congradulations for being an irritating prick?

And now irritated people aren't allowed to be sarcastic? WHAT RULEZ WILL YOU THINK OF NEXT?!

Although it is irritating, I think you dictating my beliefs for me is also quite hilarious. How I could be wrong about what I believe is beyond me, cheif. But hey-- its your decision to be an insulting prick on the internet, not mine.



...looking back, I saw no such "links" or "sources" you provided. Doing my own research, about.com's definitions of the words seem to contradict what you state, as does wikipedia. I am agnostic, that is what my religious preference is. Have fun trying to prove me wrong, but I am not an atheist, and you cannot tell me that I am.

 

[Tr0n]

christ.. dont you guys have anything more important, or at least more worthwile, to do?

Noes.

 

[theotherguy]

I thought this topic was supposed to be about whether or not god exists, not wheter agnostics exist.

 

[kirovman]

I thought this topic was supposed to be about whether or not god exists, not wheter agnostics exist.

Heh, good point.

 

[Tr0n]

You shut your face!

 

[kirovman]

You shut your face!

It's Tr0n! :O

 

[Yuri]

Well, I don't have an option to vote for in this poll...

I found a pretty good link relating to agnosticism. First link on google. http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

Maybe you are quoting George Smith, Ludah, who divides agnostics into the divisions you created. But right after, there is "empirical Agnostics" and "Agnostic Humanists." I wouldn't consider myself any of these catagories. I don't see the need to get into the specifics, and I do not see why I cannot say I am an agnostic. Not all agnostics are atheists, and it says that right there in that article. I've yet to see any sources that hold your claim that agnostics have to be leaning towards either side of the two catagories you've made. Thanks once more for the belittlement of my beliefs, but it seems you don't have much ground to stand on other than your own egocentric superiority complex.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Care to explain?

Explaining to that guy the existence of agnostics is like explaining to an atheist the existence od God.

Pointless.

 

[el Chi]

I got the impression you were saying agnosticism is not a valid religious perspective to adopt.

Well I don't actually believe that we exist.

"I think, therefore I am" is wrong.
Consiousness is an illusion.

Your alternative proposition being?

 

[The Kaiser]

Well, being that I am an active Roman Catholic, of course I'd belive in God. Truthfully to me, it just doesn't seem logical for Him not to exist. The fact we as one of the sole species in the whole universe just exist from nowhere because matter suddenly formed into planets and whatnot, with no real purpose to it, all out of unguided motions? That doesn't exactly fly with me, at any rate.

 

[theotherguy]

Do you really think it's logical to assume that we alone are the only intelligent species in the universe? A universe of trillions of stars, each with their own planets is bound to have other life, possibly even intelligent life.

In a huge, nearly infinite universe, there are limitless possibilities. All of the rules and happenstances that point to our existence only seem unlikely due to the anthropic principle. Obviously we are here, and are capable of observing the universe around us, and so clearly all of that "random assortment" of matter has the possibility of generating life, because we are here observing it. If the randomness resulted in no life, we would not be here to observe it. This is the case with much of the universe, but we are lucky, and are here observing our universe so clearly all of that randomness is capable of producing intelligent life on a world exactley like the one we observe.

It's a difficult concept to understand,the anthropic principle, but it really is very logical if you think about it.

 

[99.vikram]

Do you really think it's logical to assume that we alone are the only intelligent species in the universe? A universe of trillions of stars, each with their own planets is bound to have other life, possibly even intelligent life.

QFT. Probability for the win.

It's a difficult concept to understand,the anthropic principle, but it really is very logical if you think about it.

IMO the anthropic principle is good and all, but it offers no answers. Why do we observe the universe as it is? Because we do

 

[Cole]

Suddenly? Billions of years.....

Unguided? Gravity? Atoms trying to be stable?

 

[DeusExMachina]

Or perhaps a natural metaphysical force that binds us all...

 

[Jintor]

I'm thinking narrativium here.

 

[Ludah]

Although it is irritating, I think you dictating my beliefs for me is also quite hilarious.

Not dictating. I'm describing exactly what your beliefs are. And you are an atheist. You'd think it would be easy to just accept this and move on, but you show such an extreme resistance to the term.

Of course, I can't entirely blame you, considering the unwarranted stigma that it's built up over the years.

How I could be wrong about what I believe is beyond me, cheif. But hey-- its your decision to be an insulting prick on the internet, not mine.

It's entirely possible to be wrong about what you believe when you ignore their proper definitions, chief. But hey, it's your decision to be a hypocrite when you were the very first to start throwing out the insults.

...looking back, I saw no such "links" or "sources" you provided. Doing my own research, about.com's definitions of the words seem to contradict what you state, as does wikipedia. I am agnostic, that is what my religious preference is. Have fun trying to prove me wrong, but I am not an atheist, and you cannot tell me that I am.

You are. And you're also a liar. Take a long hard look and you will most certainly find links provided.

From about.com: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm

"What is the Definition of Atheism?:
Atheism, broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. Christians insist that atheism means the denial of the existence of any gods; the absence of belief in any gods is, for some strange reason, often ignored. At best it might be mistakenly referred to as agnosticism, which is actually the position that knowledge of gods is not possible. Dictionaries and specialized references make it clear, though, that atheism can have a much broader definition."

"Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What’s the Difference?:
Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not."

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

"Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

"It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism."

My guess is that you resist the concept of the atheism is because of the last quote.

Now let's look at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of theism (the belief in the existence of deities). This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not."

"Agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism, though many weak atheists may be agnostics, and those who are strong atheists with regard to a particular deity might be weak atheists or agnostics with regard to other deities."

It becomes painfully obvious at this point that you either A) have not actually read the sources and are a liar, or B) severely misunderstand them. In either case, you're still wrong.

...and I do not see why I cannot say I am an agnostic.

You can say you are an agnostic. But you are also an atheist. Any "middle position" between atheism and theism is logically impossible.

Not all agnostics are atheists, and it says that right there in that article.

You're right. Agnostics can also be theists. Because agnosticism is entire'ly separate school of thought from theism, you can be either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. But you are always either a theist or an atheist.

You're a very sensitive individual, Erestheux. I make an argument against your claim of agnosticism existing on the same continuum of theism and atheism, but you think it's belittlement. How or why, I don't know. It only highlights your own insecurities.

 

[Jintor]

Shut up and respect his opinion of what he is, Ludah. I agree with all your evidence and stuff, but arguing about his insecurities isn't going to help.

 

[Double_Blade]

Shut up and respect his opinion of what he is, Ludah. I agree with all your evidence and stuff, but arguing about his insecurities isn't going to help.

I agree with Jintor. I think Ludah should respect people's beliefs instead of ranting at their beliefs and them. I love the fact that he is smart enough to put wikipedia to support his views and that's good but slamming members isn't cool though.

Grow up, Ludah. Respect people's opinions and their views and you too, can be respected.

And other than that. I believe there is God.

P.S What happened to the other posts? Being deleted?

 

[Ludah]

Shut up and respect his opinion of what he is, Ludah. I agree with all your evidence and stuff, but arguing about his insecurities isn't going to help.

Why should I respect his beliefs when he's done nothing but act like a prick since the beginning?

When I use quotes from sources to support my arguments, I'm apparently flooding him.
When I argue about the definitions of words and concepts, he mocks me.
When a logical case is put forth, he insults people.
Each and every one of his posts is permeated by a smug, arrogant sarcasm.
When I put forth sources, he denies that they even exist.

What exactly about this is respect-worthy? Especially an opinion that pretty much says "Hey, I defy all logic and common sense, but you're an arrogant, narrowminded shit for disagreeing with me!". Oh, and then the obligatory smilies. Very classy. Ludah is, of course, the demon in this argument.

DoubleBlade, you've proven yourself to be almost as bad, having completely ripped open and insulted me for expressing my thoughts on another matter, so I can do without your behavioral suggestions.

Bottom line is that he started the trend, and I've largely avoided insults for the most part, choosing to let my arguments stand largely on their own. Pardon me if being direct in my wording and making big posts is breaking some social mores. When he chooses to spew noxious bile into the faces of those who point out the flaws in his rationale, the only conclusion I can come to is that he is insecure about something, like the awful, shocking truth that he is (Gasp!) an atheist.

 

[Double_Blade]

I ripped open and insulted you? Why not? Because you had also ripped open and insulted me before, remember?

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=106391

Look at the bottom.

Anyway, what happened to the other posts? There is pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10,11,12?

Looks like some pages are ripped open and missing.

 

[Ludah]

See, here's the difference.

Your topic was the epitome of sheer, distilled idiocy.

"Dogs are demonic killing machines, worshipped by their owners. They feast on the innocent and ravage the populace to feed their insatiable appetite for blood. And when the frightened, helpless humans fall asleep, they return to their throne of bone and flesh to lord over and survey their slaving meals."

 

[Sulkdodds]

I think he was insulting you because that thread was...what's the scientific terminology? Oh yeah - bat f*ck insane.

EDIT: Doh, beaten.

 

[Double_Blade]

Yeah. I'll stop my ranting before this whole thing gets ugly.

But I'm saying about dogs is true. Just go watch The Omen in cinemas 6 June 2006 and you will see a unnamed satanic rottweiler dog, and you will be interested to know about it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yeah. Great. I'll watch a film and base all my opinions on that.
Besides, it's a satanic dog, so logically it's not a normal dog and can't represent the opinions of dog-kind.
See, this is what I'm talking about. In that thread you just completely ignored everybody's logical arguments.

 

[Solaris]

Science alert:

In a huge, nearly infinite universe

Nope it's finite alright.
You can't be near to inifity as no matter how big something is, it's always got infinite space between it and infinity.

 

[CptStern]

Yeah. I'll stop my ranting before this whole thing gets ugly.

But I'm saying about dogs is true. Just go watch The Omen in cinemas 6 June 2006 and you will see a unnamed satanic rottweiler dog, and you will be interested to know about it.

omg it's satan!!!!

 

[Yuri]

Insecurities? Defending my beliefs has now suddenly become an insecurity...

By the way, I accidentally said about.com when I meant to say answers.com. The simple mistake apparantly warranted half a post filled with mockery. :thumbs: I usually don't visit about.com, its not a very great source.


Let me ask everybody something. What do you think of when you think "atheist?" Do you think of someone who does not practice a known religion? Or do you think of someone who does not believe there is a God?

Why did you ignore my one source concerning agnosticism, and that guy George Smith, Ludah?

Maybe I am an atheist using definitions created by people who write long extensive books which unneccesarily catogorize agnostics into all these sects and groups and shit like that. Frankly, when it comes to religion (and to politics), labels are pretty unneccesary, and not everyone falls into these groups.

But I am not an atheist if it means

a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

athe-ism n.
1. The belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist.
2. godlessness

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist
And that is what is thought of when you call someone an atheist. I do not deny the existance of god, nor do I commit myself to the existance of god. I am an agnostic. I am not an atheist.

ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) 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.

agnostic n.
1. a person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena

agnosticism n.
the doctrine of agnostics: distinguished from ATHEISM

I am agnostic. I am not atheist.

You cannot just group all agnostics into your two golden catagories. Perhaps you have people that back you up and want to dictate to me what I believe. If "atheism" means the absense of practicing a religion, then sure, I'm an atheist. But I've looked in lots of dictionaries, and I've talked to lots of people. When someone hears "atheist," well, look above for what they think. So no, an atheist isn't just someone who doesn't practice a religion, an atheist is someone who believes there is no god.

And to get back to the point that is relevant to this thread, I am agnostic. And because of this, I cannot vote in this poll, because there is no option for me to choose.




I'd also like to apologize for earlier in this thread, where I was confused about how an agnostic atheist could exist. Well, they can exist.

But, I will not be belittled by you. You were the insulting one, you were the one who continues to call me something I am not, and others in this thread have mocked my beliefs. The lecture should have stopped when you proved me wrong about the agnostic atheists not existing, and I was being a dick, and I'm sorry. But I am not sorry for defending my beliefs, and I am not sorry for not giving into your shit demands that I am wrong, and that I am an atheist. I am not an atheist.

Agnosticism is distinct from, but compatible with, atheism. It is also compatible with theism.

Also

"Agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism, though many weak atheists may be agnostics, and those who are strong atheists with regard to a particular deity might be weak atheists or agnostics with regard to other deities."

This... doesn't prove your point.

I am not f*cking wrong in what I believe in. And I will not be belittled by you.




You realize of course that we are arguing something that is argued all over the athiest page in the wiki, right? I choose not to be labelled as an atheist because of what it implies to most people, and therefore I am agnostic. It is entertaining how you point fingers and say I don't read sources (Again, sorry about the about.com mistake) when this is right in one of the sources you quoted.

 

[dream431ca]

Science alert:


Nope it's finite alright.
You can't be near to inifity as no matter how big something is, it's always got infinite space between it and infinity.

Lets see some proof.

 

[Ome_Vince]

omg it's satan!!!!

This thing looks cute too as a little kitten Although i wouldnt want to be near it when it grows up

 

[Solaris]

Lets see some proof.

I'm afraid the burden of proof lies on you.

It was proven and accepted to be finite like a hundred of years ago.
Quick google found this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4250
Apperntly it says the universe is finite inside that article somewhere, as does:
Stephen Hawking, Einstein and even Newtoon pondered it.