Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Leumas]

You made excellent points! Why does God have to be defined, when the very definition of God is that it cannot be defined; at least by our limited human senses. That's why the very notion that one can prove or disprove God with science simply makes no sense to me.

But one can prove that all scriptures are not scientific....even if you were to claim them as allegorical and metaphorical.

Moreover, in the case of the Quran and Bible, science and “common” decency can prove that they are heinously immoral....even if you were to claim them as allegorical.

So science can prove that all human religions that are or were practiced are definitely scientifically retarded and in many cases morally vile too.

Also the animal (human and other) suffering problem pretty much negates any involved deity who cares about human strife.

Question for you.... if you were raped and violated and left for dead in some alley and later you discovered that three policemen watched the whole thing but never did anything to stop it. Furthermore, they refused to identify the rapist.....what would you say about these policemen?

So if your agnosticism is about some USELESS "higher intelligence" then fine. But if you are skeptic about an:

Omniscient.... Omnipotent.... Omnipresent..... Omnibeneficent.....Omnibenevolent.... all caring.... all loving​

GOD….. Then I am afraid science can in fact prove that s/he/it does not exist.

If you are talking about a thing that for some reason created things and then just let it all go to hell (so to speak) then OK...science cannot prove or disprove it.....but why even bother.....it is so useless.

Nevertheless, the moment any god starts manifesting any level of involvement in this world and any person makes any physical claims about it, then science can definitely prove or disprove it.

So far....science has proven that YHWH a.k.a. Jesus, a.k.a. Allah and other such human contrivances are not possible due to the fact that they are attributed very blatantly unscientific claims.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

By presuming or asserting the capability of human thought to address the question of the existence of God/gods you are doing two things;
1, you are limiting any gods which may be out there to those which can be considered by the human mind.
2, you are asserting that the human mind has the quality or capacity to address aspects of existence itself. I see no evidence of this in scientific material or western philosophy. Please furnish me with such evidence if there is some, as I may not be as well read as some.

It is not Piggy who is doing that. It is not me, for example, either who is doing this limiting. It comes from the very people who "believe" this stuff. You just cannot have it both ways, on one hand claim you "believe in God", assert that "God exists" or some such, while on the other hand attempt to seek refuge in meaninglessness.

"God" is superficially cast as a positive proposistion. "There is this-and-that and it is like so-and-so." And as such a proposition "God" ought be treated. If that cannot be done, then the statement "God exists" is not just wrong -- it is more than just wrong.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You made excellent points! Why does God have to be defined, when the very definition of God is that it cannot be defined; at least by our limited human senses. That's why the very notion that one can prove or disprove God with science simply makes no sense to me.

How do you know? Don't you actually believe in something (if you were a believer that is)?

 

[laca]

Critical Sock: I have no idea where you can even say that someone who does not believe in Zeus is 99.9% atheist. Greek Gods had human-like characteristics much like the Gods of many ancient civilizations.

All gods ever invented were nothing but really powerful humans. Your hope for a benevolent god requires that god again to be very much human-like. You are better off just admitting that you have no grounds for disbelief in all gods as opposed to your version of Yahweh. Because let's stop kidding ourselves: that's what you're hoping for, isn't it? "G-d" without any of it nastiness.

The fact that I am 100% convinced that Zeus does not exist is irrelevant towards my agnosticism of a higher intelligence somewhere in the universe.

You're wrong. It's very relevant. It shows that you have double standards when it comes to gods.

 

[laca]

I really must answer your questions with some questions of my own. Why would knowing that God doesn't exist not change anything for you? It would change everything for me. No it wouldn't change my clothes or hobbies but wouldn't knowing that we weren't alive by random chance but for some greater purpose supercede all of that anyhow? Obviously we should live each day as if it were our last regardless of whether or not God exists, and of course we can make our own purpose in life. However, I simply cannot compare the two. And how would I know that I'm deluding myself when I'm not sure? Simply because I like many others want to believe in a God, does that somehow prove God doesn't exist? (And yes, I'm typing "God"- quite frankly I'm sick and tired of all of the whining on here over what to me is a trivial point about how I choose to spell or not spell God.)

In short? We are not the same. Deal with it.

Finally, a question to everyone on this thread. Let's suppose that science prove God does not exist. What do you think will happen? Will the world become a better place? Will wars cease to exist? Or will people lose hope and become depressed and angry?

Which god? Usually, "God" with an uppercase G refers to Yahweh. Yahweh has been disproved before science came around.

If you're referring to any god, then I'm sorry to say that science cannot prove that. Define a god and let's see where that takes us. All gods? Sorry, not possible.

But let's play along. Let's suppose the impossible.

The world would become a better place if people could accept the truth. But people are dumb...

Wars would not cease to exist. Perhaps religious wars, but see above...

Why would people get depressed? The ones that would get depressed would never take science over their idiotic beliefs. So, no.

 

[laca]

I understand your point. However, I can say 100% that I do not believe in a God who dangles us like puppets for its amusement the same way that I 100% do not believe in any kind of hell for eternity. Whatever is in this universe is either benign at the worst or good at its best. (Please do not misconstrue me here; I'm talking about if there's some form of higher intelligence; not individual murderers or criminals). Anything else simply does not make any logical sense to me. If there is a God, why would it be evil? What would the purpose of that be?

Seriously? Argument from incredulity is all you've got?

 

[laca]

I can see where you're coming from. But why would you necessarily have to be a pawn? If there's a higher intelligence in this universe, maybe it's purpose was simply to give us life, in order for us to find our own purpose. :}

No, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. It's either no higher purpose or we're pawns.

Obviously it's possible that we would be pawns, but I'd rather be an atheist than believe in a God that would do that for no reason.

I'd rather go where the evidence leads. To believe in something does not entail worship. YMMV.

 

[laca]

You made excellent points! Why does God have to be defined, when the very definition of God is that it cannot be defined; at least by our limited human senses. That's why the very notion that one can prove or disprove God with science simply makes no sense to me.

To have a meaningful discussion about anything, it has to be defined. Otherwise what are you talking about? Obviously, you have a concept of what you think a god is. It doesn't have to be fully defined. Now, if your god interacts with this world, it falls under scientific scrutiny. If it doesn't then it's irrelevant.

 

[laca]

I just think a lot of posts sound more like ridicule than discussion.

Post #23:emphasis mine.

That's not any kind of declaration of fact, it's a simple statement of preference, something that is not evidence based. What in that preference begs for debate?

It doesn't fit well with being an agnostic.

 

[punshhh]

It is not Piggy who is doing that. It is not me, for example, either who is doing this limiting. It comes from the very people who "believe" this stuff. You just cannot have it both ways, on one hand claim you "believe in God", assert that "God exists" or some such, while on the other hand attempt to seek refuge in meaninglessness.

"God" is superficially cast as a positive proposistion. "There is this-and-that and it is like so-and-so." And as such a proposition "God" ought be treated. If that cannot be done, then the statement "God exists" is not just wrong -- it is more than just wrong.

Yes I appreciate the distinction you are making here. However when I discuss the existence or not of gods I am interested in wether they might actually exist or not irrespective of what humanity has to say on the issue.

You may note that I do not assert that gods exist or that I believe them to exist.

 

[laca]

Yes I appreciate the distinction you are making here. However when I discuss the existence or not of gods I am interested in wether they might actually exist or not irrespective of what humanity has to say on the issue.

You may note that I do not assert that gods exist or that I believe them to exist.

So why are you labeling yourself a theist?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes I appreciate the distinction you are making here. However when I discuss the existence or not of gods I am interested in wether they might actually exist or not irrespective of what humanity has to say on the issue.

I kind of understand the point even. Me on the other hand I am rather after whether or not our concepts about reality match reality to a sufficient degree. God would be such a case, and I am sure that you already see that any disregard for what "humanity has to say" is a no-no with that. There would need to be a match, which cannot be if not at least some half-baked proposition is stipulated.

What is more is ... If you wish to use "God" as a label for at least certain parts of the world which lie beyond our ken (i.e. 'Mythicist-style'), then discussing the existence of "God" would be kind of moot. Because, how could God not exist? Any uncertainty wrt the existence of that kind of God would be an illusion.

You may note that I do not assert that gods exist or that I believe them to exist.

You should. But you should not ommit to also state what that means. (Me, I would not feel contradicted however.)

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Let's suppose that science prove God does not exist. What do you think will happen?

I'm not sure why we would need to suppose something that we can observe readily. The simple fact of the matter is that whatever god Believer X believes in doesn't exist. What happens when this is proven to be the case? Believer X simply ignores it and continues to believe.

When science shows homeopathy doesn't work, homeopathy believers keep believing.

When science shows you can't talk to the dead, psychic believers keep believing.

When science shows X and people are heavily invested in X they continue to believe in X. That doesn't mean science hasn't proven it, it just means people believe what they want to believe regardless.

 

[punshhh]

So why are you labeling yourself a theist?

I am at least 75% of the opinion that they do exist, ie on balance I am more a theist than an athiest.

 

[Darat]

If we go by the definitions provided by the the Christian bible(s), there are no "True Christians" at all, given the many direct contradictions found therein. I do not agree that in order to be considered a member of a religion, one must follow every tenet espoused by that religion. Granted, it may label them a non-mainstream whatever-they-claim-to-be, but to say that they should not be considered Christian doesn't follow for me.

But that then wouldn't be going from what the religions themselves say about their version of god. I don't know any major Christian denomination that only has the Bible (of whichever version) as the source of their definition for their god?

ETA: Just to reiterate (if I've already iterated it) I am not trying to tell other people what they must believe to self-label themselves as "Christian". Just that if we want to discuss definitions of gods then we have some regions that claim to hold the exclusive definition and have hundred of millions of people that they claim believe in their definitions. If the word god is reduced to nothing more then "whatever anyone believes" then it becomes a meaningless term.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

But one can prove that all scriptures are not scientific....even if you were to claim them as allegorical and metaphorical.

Moreover, in the case of the Quran and Bible, science and “common” decency can prove that they are heinously immoral....even if you were to claim them as allegorical.

So science can prove that all human religions that are or were practiced are definitely scientifically retarded and in many cases morally vile too.

Also the animal (human and other) suffering problem pretty much negates any involved deity who cares about human strife.

Question for you.... if you were raped and violated and left for dead in some alley and later you discovered that three policemen watched the whole thing but never did anything to stop it. Furthermore, they refused to identify the rapist.....what would you say about these policemen?

So if your agnosticism is about some USELESS "higher intelligence" then fine. But if you are skeptic about an:

Omniscient.... Omnipotent.... Omnipresent..... Omnibeneficent.....Omnibenevolent.... all caring.... all loving​

GOD….. Then I am afraid science can in fact prove that s/he/it does not exist.

If you are talking about a thing that for some reason created things and then just let it all go to hell (so to speak) then OK...science cannot prove or disprove it.....but why even bother.....it is so useless.

Nevertheless, the moment any god starts manifesting any level of involvement in this world and any person makes any physical claims about it, then science can definitely prove or disprove it.

So far....science has proven that YHWH a.k.a. Jesus, a.k.a. Allah and other such human contrivances are not possible due to the fact that they are attributed very blatantly unscientific claims.

The fact that you would call God useless is beyond arrogant. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you.

 

[CriticalSock]

Critical Sock: I have no idea where you can even say that someone who does not believe in Zeus is 99.9% atheist. Greek Gods had human-like characteristics much like the Gods of many ancient civilizations. The fact that I am 100% convinced that Zeus does not exist is irrelevant towards my agnosticism of a higher intelligence somewhere in the universe. And as a matter of fact, I have gone to church and to mosques. In college and afterwards I made a point to read up and learn about as many religions as possible.

Nicole, My point is a serious one, I'm not being facetious.

You are 100% convinced that Zeus and ALL other gods, with the exception of the god of the bible, do not exist.

What is your proof? Prove to me that they don't exist.

You make the argument that they have human-like characteristics but this is true of the bible god as well so it can't be a convincing argument for you otherwise it would apply to the bible god too.


As for my initial post to you, which was quite hostile, I have seen more than a few people who have started discussions on this forum pretending to be agnostic or atheist when actually they have been Christians who are using that as a trick to get their foot in the door. Your first few posts set alarm bells ringing in my mind.

I'm still not convinced that you're agnostic, but I no longer think you're here to try and trick us.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But that then wouldn't be going from what the religions themselves say about their version of god. I don't know any major Christian denomination that only has the Bible (of whichever version) as the source of their definition for their god?

ETA: Just to reiterate (if I've already iterated it) I am not trying to tell other people what they must believe to self-label themselves as "Christian". Just that if we want to discuss definitions of gods then we have some regions that claim to hold the exclusive definition and have hundred of millions of people that they claim believe in their definitions. If the word god is reduced to nothing more then "whatever anyone believes" then it becomes a meaningless term.

Religions don't do anything, people do. People believe in gods they ways that they will; in Christianity we have always seen a bewildering array of differing beliefs in God and Jesus, from the beginning of the religion to today.

The fact that many different people hold various beliefs does not make the word "God" a meaningless term. It's like any other word, where there is a family resemblance among its many usages. The big terms, like god and liberty, tend to have many different connotations. This is just a statement about how we use language and live our lives and nothing more.

 

[Darat]

Religions don't do anything, people do. People believe in gods they ways that they will; in Christianity we have always seen a bewildering array of differing beliefs in God and Jesus, from the beginning of the religion to today.

The fact that many different people hold various beliefs does not make the word "God" a meaningless term. It's like any other word, where there is a family resemblance among its many usages. The big terms, like god and liberty, tend to have many different connotations. This is just a statement about how we use language and live our lives and nothing more.

We shall have to disagree - I strongly believe that having a discussion about something that can't be defined is pretty meaningless.

 

[abaddon]

The fact that you would call God useless is beyond arrogant. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you.

Which god? And what use are they/is it?