Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Leumas]

It's the lack of facts and evidence for god that informs my judgment that there is no god.

There is also the fact that there are as many definitions of god as there are believers that lead me to the conclusion that they are deluding themselves.

Well said....

 

[Leumas]

But I've never read the bible (except the Book of John when I took ancient Greek), so I don't know what it says. I've only been to church a handful of times in my life, so I don't know what various Christian religions say. I have lots of reading ahead and lots to learn.

I don't know if there is a god(s) or not. I am absolutely sure of one thing however, and that is they are utterly USELESS if they do exist. This is due to the Theodicy problem (Please read this post of mine regarding the Theodicy problem)

Also consider the Epicurus problem....here is my slight rewarding of it:

• Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then s/he/it is not omnipotent and therefore no god.
• Is God able, but not willing to thwart evil? Then s/he/it is malevolent and thus no god.
• Is God both able and willing to stop evil? Then s/he/is is a moron since s/he/it is obviously failing and consequently not a god.

I am also utterly convinced that if gods do exist they would be no more in relationship to us than the USA sailors were to the Pacific Islanders during WWII or Cortéz to the Aztecs.

In other words they would be nothing more than advanced aliens.
(please see this argument of mine that I made a while back....also see this post)

Always remember this:

If God made the universe....then who made God?

If you are willing to accept that a fully sentient powerful willful being can exist out of nothing....why can't you accept that a much less ordered and therefore evolved thing called the universe can ALSO exist out of nothing?

Why is it that your credulity is able to stop your enquiry at the ability of such an amazingly evolved being to just spontaneously exist?

Why can't you accept that a totally unintelligent non-sentient thing can exist without a creator?

It will always boil down to ....who created the creator....why can you fathom that a creator does not need a creator and a nothing-special thing does?​

In any case..... I am also ABSOLUTELY 100000% sure that even if there is a god(s) they are not any of the gods of any of the religions in the world currently or in the past.

I suggest that you start with reading the Bible. It should not take you long. Start on page one....Beresheet (In the beginning).... and proceed from there.

It took me one summer holiday at the age of 17 and that in addition to chasing girls every opportunity I could get.

If you find yourself unable to withstand the boredom then may I suggest this:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus
Joshua, Judges, Samuel (I and II) and Kings I
Isaiah, Ezekiel
Matthew, John
Acts
Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews
1 Peter, James, Revelation​

I also suggest you watch this AMAZING video series (20 of them ) The link is to the first in the series. Once the video finishes it should proceed on to the next part automatically....but in case it does not see this page for the list of the videos.

They are all on average about 10 minutes so altogether you have under 4 hours of watching....worth EVERY MINUTE.





I also think these books are WONDERFUL:

• Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary
• Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists
• The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails
• Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)
• God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer
• Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years
• THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION
• Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects
• About The Holy Bible
• The Age of Reason
• God and Human Beings
• Superstition In All Ages

 

[punshhh]

Well said....

Quite, the mythological gods are misleading at best.

It does however not follow from this observation that there are no gods.

 

[punshhh]

I don't know if there is a god(s) or not. I am absolutely sure of one thing however, and that is they are utterly USELESS if they do exist. This is due to the Theodicy problem (Please read this post of mine regarding the Theodicy problem)

Thank you for quoting the following passage, it saves me having to wade through the bible to find it.

"{6:6} But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Here Jesus is describing mystical practice, suggesting that he or whoever wrote these words was a mystic. There are other references in the bible, but I don't have them at hand.

I have considered the various arguments you have presented over the last few months relating to the existence of gods. I have not found one which provides a convincing case for the non existence of gods. However we are entering the territory of God = advanced alien here.

 

[punshhh]

I think I would notice if there was a 7ft tall furry creature on the end of my nose and we could certainly test for it provided we have a testable definition of wookie.

Have you not found a hairy bogey on the end of your nose?

Of course the differences between a wookie and a God are significant. Wookies are not supernatural creatures. Wookies are imaginary creatures which, if they existed, would be wholly natural. There is nothing in the definition of wookie which prevents it's existence. The same cannot be said for many God hypotheses.

Yes, there are problems with many of the God hypotheses when it comes to a philosophical analysis.
The one which is least problematic as I see it is of God as an emergent property of nature. This is not the same as God = nature, there is a distinction. This God would employ reason or logic in its activity or something amounting to the same thing.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Quite, the mythological gods are misleading at best.

It does however not follow from this observation that there are no gods.

It does follow, however, that throughout history people have demonstrated a remarkable aptitude for self-delusion. Therefore, any discussion about the possibility of any god's existence should be entered into with skepticism.

I would like to think that grizzly bears are friendly, but since they have shown a tendency to rip peoples' arms off, I'm not going to pet any. I feel the same
way about entertaining a belief in god.

 

[punshhh]

What do you mean "such a thing"?

You have yet to describe what sort of "thing" you're talking about.

Up til now, you've literally been talking about nothing.

Are you familiar with the term precursor?

How do you know I have been talking about nothing? I am talking about something beyond the perception of humanity. I don't know what it is and neither do you.
It sounds like your implying again that there is nothing beyond the perception of humanity, is this your position?

or is it that it is inconceivable to discuss such things if they exist?

 

[Leumas]

I have considered the various arguments you have presented over the last few months relating to the existence of gods. I have not found one which provides a convincing case for the non existence of gods. However we are entering the territory of God = advanced alien here.

Yes I agree with you....if there is anything that might have a god-like powers as far as our limited technology and knowledge is concerned then it is only just an advanced alien.....any sufficiently advanced technology in the eyes of benighted people is magical.

But I have some questions for you....

Do you think Moctezuma was wise in treating Cortés as a God?
Do you think Cortés deserved to be treated as a God?

Would you worship the Klingons? and if so...which ones...the ones from Kirk's days or from Picard's days?​

 

[laca]

Are you familiar with the term precursor?

How do you know I have been talking about nothing? I am talking about something beyond the perception of humanity. I don't know what it is and neither do you.

Then what are you talking about?

It sounds like your implying again that there is nothing beyond the perception of humanity, is this your position?

or is it that it is inconceivable to discuss such things if they exist?

Not inconceivable, just utterly useless. What would you be discussing? See, this is mysticism: talking about stuff without knowing anything. It's laughable.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

The one which is least problematic as I see it is of God as an emergent property of nature. This is not the same as God = nature, there is a distinction. This God would employ reason or logic in its activity or something amounting to the same thing.

And if we are going to just pull things out of butts then god might be a wagging of time's finger, or a ripple in the sense of everything, or a clarkwarg in the oustennine of the lower firgentation of the moldunbark.

Of course, it would then be down to the proposer of these things to:

1) Explain what they are and what they mean
2) Show they exist in some meaningful way
3) Demonstrate that these things match a definition of 'God'
4) Illustrate why I should give them any more consideration than any of the other infinite number of things that could also have been pulled from the butt

And most importantly, how any of the things they then conclude from the existence of this thing actually follow from any of the above.

Of course, nobody ever does. Because defining them would make them go away. It seems God is an emergent property of vagueness in definition.

 

[punshhh]

Yes I agree with you....if there is anything that might have a god-like powers as far as our limited technology and knowledge is concerned then it is only just an advanced alien.....any sufficiently advanced technology in the eyes of benighted people is magical.

I have pointed out before that such an advanced alien may well be indistinguishable from God. Of course it would not be absolutely omnipotent etc. However from the perspective of an observer within our known universe it might well appear omnipotent, or even omnipresent(an interesting notion).

But I have some questions for you....

Do you think Moctezuma was wise in treating Cortés as a God?
Do you think Cortés deserved to be treated as a God?​

I think it is unwise to treat anyone or anything as a God. If God walked past me in the street I would just say hi and continue on my way as if he/she were just another stranger.

Would you worship the Klingons? and if so...which ones...the ones from Kirk's days or from Picard's days?

I confess I do idolise Picard. Worship is a tribal activity and I would not do it or advise anyone to do it.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Leumas#1122

I was wondering whether to write something like this to FattyCatty: May I suggest that you remember to ask yourself constantly why you want to believe.
However, I'd like instead to say 'hear, hear' to your post.
And that list of books sounds very interesting - I've already sent an e-mail to Talking nooks asking if they have any of them! I think it's probably a forlorn hope, though.

 

[Leumas]

Leumas#1122

I was wondering whether to write something like this to FattyCatty: May I suggest that you remember to ask yourself constantly why you want to believe.
However, I'd like instead to say 'hear, hear' to your post.
And that list of books sounds very interesting - I've already sent an e-mail to Talking nooks asking if they have any of them! I think it's probably a forlorn hope, though.

Thanks....

You can buy all the books on the list as eBooks from Amazon and they would be MUCH cheaper...a couple on the list are in fact free or $0.99.

You do not need a Kindle device to read the books.....you can read them on an iPhone or iPad or Android phone or tablet and on your PC or Mac.

The Apps to be able to do that are FREE from Amazon.

If you have a Kindle you can even BORROW the books from Libraries that have the ability to do that....most now do.

Amazon has a new feature where you can BORROW a book from them for a month for MUCH less than the price of the book...not all books are available for that.

 

[Leumas]

I think it is unwise to treat anyone or anything as a God. If God walked past me in the street I would just say hi and continue on my way as if he/she were just another stranger.

I confess I do idolise Picard. Worship is a tribal activity and I would not do it or advise anyone to do it.

EXCELLENT....

 

[Dani]

How so?

How so?

Complexity said:

Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me

You said that this statement assumes that "what is acceptable to him is important or matters to others", but in the statement he didn't say anything about whether his opinion should be important to others. You can't infer from that statement any more than what you can infer from any other statement (which is that, as a general rule, anyone posting on internet assumes that it matters to others; Without that assumption, there is no dialog).

I also like you, FattyCatty. I honestly mean it.

In your response to Slingblade, you said:

I can understand that. I guess I would hope for a distinction between "that's a silly thing you're doing by believing" and "you're a silly person for believing." You seem to be making that distinction.

I think many people in this forum make that distinction, but not everyone, of course. If you ask me, I'll tell you that belief in god/s is irrational. I even started a thread about how that statement is perceived, and in fact that particular thread was partly inspired by your posts from another debate. However, I believe everyone does irrational things, and that having an irrational belief doesn't imply being an irrational person (in fact, I don't know exactly what an "irrational person" is; maybe a person with more irrational beliefs than the average?). In fact, I'm concerned that "irrational" is necessarily perceived as a derogative epithet. It shouldn't be, in my opinion. I think it's important to distinguish what's rational from what's irrational, which is closely linked (and interchangeable most of the time) to what's scientific and what's unscientific. Being aware of this difference raises new questions that can lead to an epistemological improvement (an improvement in our methods of gathering knowledge) so that's an honest, not arrogant at all, concern. You may not share my definition of "rational". Fine, just try to remember what I mean when I say it. I always try to clarify what I mean as much as possible, even in English .

Also, facts are cold and hard. They just are. Sometimes, people state them in a seemingly cold and hard way too. They can be wrong, too. However, the way we say things (warmer, like Slingblade, or colder, like Complexity) isn't related at all with whether the things we say are right or not. From your response to Slingblade, I gather you're conflating your emotional response with your rational response to the different inputs you receive generally in this forum. I understand that behavior, and I think that, although to different extents, everyone is naturally prone to that. I have had this behavior, and tend to have it whenever I'm convinced I'm right or someone is being obnoxious to me or people I like. It's difficult not to be emotionally involved with what you believe, but being emotionally involved, if it prevents us from using a consistent method of dealing with facts (reason) leads to confirmation bias and rational inconsistence (and therefore, to irrational thoughts). Some years ago, I encountered online a person who participated in skeptic, atheist and religious forums, who usually expressed his ideas in a particularly cold way. I was first turned off by his seemingly arrogant tone (as others, who were more concerned about how other people perceived them, as could be seen by their more emotional posts) but soon I realized that he was only interested in discussing facts and didn't care at all about how other members' emotions would deal with the facts he discussed. He cared about internet etiquette, because he rightly thought that that's the proper way of having fruitful debates. I engaged in debates with that person, partly because I wanted to show that wise guy that he could be wrong, and partly because I also cared about facts. Facts won most of the time, and I often had to capitulate. I was happy, though. I learned a lot thanks to that person, and I personally thanked him later on for not being particularly nice to me and caring about the facts.

 

[Piggy]

I do have some concerns about being rejected for believing in God. Or if not rejected, sneered at, called names, and assumed to lack intelligence. Because I'm still figuring out what I believe, and because I'm still learning how to argue and to see fallacies, I'm not well equipped yet to defend my beliefs. I am, however, very stubborn, and learning.

Thanks for posting this. It's a useful reminder.

 

[Piggy]

Quite, the mythological gods are misleading at best.

It does however not follow from this observation that there are no gods.

If you're going to dismiss the so-called "mythological gods" then you need to describe the non-mythological ones for us.

 

[Piggy]

Are you familiar with the term precursor?

How do you know I have been talking about nothing? I am talking about something beyond the perception of humanity. I don't know what it is and neither do you.
It sounds like your implying again that there is nothing beyond the perception of humanity, is this your position?

or is it that it is inconceivable to discuss such things if they exist?

I know you're talking about nothing because you're talking about nothing... you admit it right here.

If it's true that X it entirely beyond human perception, then obviously we can have no idea about it, which means we can't talk about it, or know what it is, or even guess what it is.

So if you're talking about something that you truly have no idea about at all, you're talking about nothing.

But you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to insist that we can talk about it, but also that we haven't the faintest idea what it might be.

And besides that, God is obviously not something which nobody has any idea about. People who believe in God believe in something.

 

[punshhh]

If you're going to dismiss the so-called "mythological gods" then you need to describe the non-mythological ones for us.

An entity exhibiting reason and which is a precursor to the known* universe.


*By known universe I am referring specifically to the universe as we find it and not existence(what exists).

 

[zooterkin]

Thanks....

You can buy all the books on the list as eBooks from Amazon and they would be MUCH cheaper...a couple on the list are in fact free or $0.99.

You do not need a Kindle device to read the books.....you can read them on an iPhone or iPad or Android phone or tablet and on your PC or Mac.

Susan is referring to Talking Books, which are audio books primarily for the blind and partially sighted in the UK.

If you have a Kindle you can even BORROW the books from Libraries that have the ability to do that....most now do.

Amazon has a new feature where you can BORROW a book from them for a month for MUCH less than the price of the book...not all books are available for that.

That's only available in the US at the moment, as far as I know.