I have some opinions on this topic, which I will share. Me? I'd probably consider myself more agnostic than anything else, although, technically, I was raised and still am Catholic.
But here's the thing - to be either an atheist, or a believer in a deity - either position takes a leap of faith. Atheist and "believers" both hold to a belief, not based on any objective, reproducible, concrete, irrefutable evidence, but because they choose to believe.
Just as atheists cannot prove the nonexistence of god, neither can believers prove god's existence. Hence - a belief on faith.
My own position is that I am open to either possibility. This is not "doubt" on my part. Rather, it is a judgment that the evidence of either of these two claims is inconclusive. And it is very likely that it always will be so. But I'm okay with that, whereas others may not be comfortable with such uncertainty.
What I do believe is that the world as we know it came to be in a very different way than described in the bible. Whereas the bible uses fantastical stories to explain the origins of the world and its life, scientific studies sketch a different scene.
Note that I used the word "sketch" very purposefully. I do not claim that the scientific theories on origins have the definitive answer to how we came to be. It's an evolving, work in progress (no pun intended). But the chain of events that these studies suggest is very different from the tales told in the bible.
My point for illustrating what I view as biblical inconsistencies contrasted against scientific theory, is because I feel it illustrates that the bible is not perfect. This is not to say that there aren't excellent lessons on living life in the bible, because I feel that there are. No, my point, is that if it can be shown that the bible is not without flaw, then the door is open to the possibility that there actually is no god.
Yet, despite this, I also accept the possibility that the existence of god may be reality, and is inherently and intentionally mysterious.
Changing gears, I want to reaffirm what was touched on earlier in this thread. And that is, if the world's major religions did not contain the concept of an afterlife as a reward for good behavior, or being set on fire as a punishment, then I suspect that those willing to make a faith-based belief in god would probably be much less.
And this opens up a final question: do people believe in religion because they feel induced by the reward of afterlife, and / or threatened by the punishment of afterlife?
If the afterlife concept is not why one believes, then what is the reason for believing, and would one still believe if there was no afterlife?
If the afterlife concept is why one believes, then is this a valid premise for belief in a religion?
Originally posted by Kain
Seriously, I can't understand how ANYONE can have faith in any branch of Chritianity after the atrocities that the church has commited.
Say your favorite sports team wins a game. Or loses. And the fans riot and people die. Would you hold the team responsible? Holding religion, or specifically Chrisitianity responsible for everything bad that members of churches have done wrong makes that much sense. I always notice how quick people are to point out how you shouldn't believe this or that because someone from the church did something bad, but they never mention anything "good" that the church has done for people.
It's not like being an atheist, agnostic, muslim, or whatever your chosen philosophy outside of Christianity happens to be, makes you predisposed to being honest. I'm sure a simple google search would turn up plenty of "atrocities" commited by *GASP* people who are NOT Christians.
Every religion is guilty of horrible atrocities. Some more than others.
That's why I loathe them all equally. :)
I'm not sure as what to define myself.
My belief and doubt in God wavers. At times I feel I believe, at other times, I don't.
What am I? :confused:
On the fence Agnost perhaps.
Or an on the fence Christian, whichever term you prefer.
i refuse to believe something. either i know something or i dont. in the last case i know that i dont know. and that's more that enough.
believing is something for the "weak-minded" who cannot deal with the fact that there are things unexplained and that we are just at the beginning of getting the slightest clue of whats going on "out there" and that the meaning of life is probably just a fart against the wind where no wind blows.
we humans are still way too dumb to understand, anyways.
Originally posted by Druid Bremen
toms, your statements of agnosticism, I have difficulty in believing. Your case is like an observer in a case in court, with each opposing team being atheism and theism respectively. You do not know which one is right. Let us say that the evidence is perfectly balanced, meaning that there can be no judgement against each other, yet. Thus you are doubtful, and do not know which team to believe, because there is no evidence to prove the right (and wrong) of the teams. Is this not doubt?
Maybe. I'd see it more as if i went to court, and both lawyers stood up and said "we have no evidence, your honour, but trust me.. our side is right". And the judge then turned to me and said "right, who is correct?".
No sane person could make a decison based on a complete lack of evidence... so i wouldn't say such a lack of decision was doubt... doubt implies that you have an opinion you aren't sure of.
I have no opinion, as i have nothing to base one on. That isn't doubt. And (unless i suddenly get some evidence) it isn't fleeting either.
I am a body at rest, and unless someone applies a force to me either way I will stay at rest. That is different to being a body that wants to go somewhere, but is unsure about doing so.
That isn't doubt. And (unless i suddenly get some evidence) it isn't fleeting either.
The term 'doubt' totally depends on your point of view.
From the agnostic point of view, there is no 'doubt' that you are sure you have no opinion either way. (At this current time, given the avaliable evidence and the often theoretical nature of the proposed Deity - depending on the religion)
...but from the Athiest / Thiest point of view, the Agnostic view is not making a firm decision one way or the other (and let's be clear, there isn't a half-way house in reality [again, depending on the deity] - there either is an all-powerful being or their isn't. Super-advanced aliens - for example - can't be classified as 'all-powerful', unless they could literally do anything).
...so I accept from their point of view, agnosticism can (correctly) be seen as 'doubt', since the actual answer to this question can only be yes or no...
...my main point is neither point of view troubles me. I see both as correct, and I would still see the agnostic position as the superior one (at this point), no matter which way you look at it...
Originally posted by toms
Maybe. I'd see it more as if i went to court, and both lawyers stood up and said "we have no evidence, your honour, but trust me.. our side is right". And the judge then turned to me and said "right, who is correct?".
No sane person could make a decison based on a complete lack of evidence... so i wouldn't say such a lack of decision was doubt... doubt implies that you have an opinion you aren't sure of.
I have no opinion, as i have nothing to base one on. That isn't doubt. And (unless i suddenly get some evidence) it isn't fleeting either.
I am a body at rest, and unless someone applies a force to me either way I will stay at rest. That is different to being a body that wants to go somewhere, but is unsure about doing so.
I never said there was no evidence. I simply said that in my analogy, the evidence was perfectly balanced, in a sense. You cannot say that you are a body at rest, because the different sides are tugging at you with their numerous evidences. It is natural that one does not include all of the evidence within his thoughts, so definitely his mind's opinion on the matter would be lopsided, one day supporting Creationism, the other supporting Atheism. There is overwhelming evidence, that, if one side's evidence did not exist, could make the judge ( the general public) come to a decision quickly. The judge is doubtful, because he does not know which side to believe, as both have equally good evidence. His mind is under siege over the matter. This is doubt as I perceive it.
judge is doubtful, because he does not know which side to believe, as both have equally good evidence. His mind is under siege over the matter.
Now this I disagree with.
I dont' beleive the Theist side of this argument have much good evidence at all - in actual fact.
And there is plenty of good evidence on the Athiest side. And it's still growing...
...for most other subjects, this would be a clear and cut case. But the problem isn't the actual evidence here -it's the very nature of what the Athiest side is trying to 'disprove'.
...how much evidence would it take to disprove an infinately powerful being?
...the answer is there will never be enough evidence, because this all-powerful deity controls everything, including the very evidence your trying to examine :) If it wants to hide from us, it can. And there is nothing we can do about it...
...the best you can hope to do is show there would be no need for a creator. And even then you would have to know literally every little detail of every event since the beginning of the universe (assuming there was a beginning) to know that for sure...
Given the inherent illogicality of the concept of 'diety', the agnostic position is - imo - the sensible choice. Certainly at this point in history...
Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk
Now this I disagree with.
I dont' beleive the Theist side of this argument have much good evidence at all...
And there is plenty of good evidence on the Athiest side. And it's still growing...
...for most other subjects, this would be a clear and cut case. But the problem isn't the actual evidence here -it's the very nature of what the Athiest side is trying to 'disprove'.
...how much evidence woudl it take to disprove an infinately powerful being?
...the answer is there will never be anough evidence, because this all-powerful deity controls everything, including the very evidence your trying to examine :) If it wants to hide from us, it can. And there is nothing we can do about it...
...the best you can hope to do is show there would be no need for a creator. And even then you would have to know literally every little detail of every event since the beginning of the universe (assuming there was a beginning) to know that for sure...
Given the illogicality of the concept of 'diety', the consider agnostism the sensible choice...
Now wait wait, Renegade! I never, ever, said that there was sufficient evidence for the Theist side. I was simply trying to express how I felt to toms about agnosticism and doubt. I didn't want to complicate the matter with the fact that the two sides are grossly unbalanced! But indeed, I agree with your statements. People say that their god is all-loving. Isn't it possible that our god is a crazy sadistic maniac, who plants plenty of evil in the Earth in an artistic fervour? How about a God who punishes people for their illogical faith, the fact being that he's setting us on a Scientific path? Its equally possible; think about it.
Now wait wait, Renegade! I never, ever, said that there was sufficient evidence for the Theist side. I was simply trying to express how I felt to toms about agnosticism and doubt.
Ahh, ok. Fair enough :)
How about a God who punishes people for their illogical faith, the fact being that he's setting us on a Scientific path? Its equally possible; think about it.
Yeah, it's certainly possible.
...try coming up with some catchy slogans, a few rituals, get a few followers together - who knows...
The dogma of the Church of Bremen could hold considerable power in future generations ;)
Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk
Ahh, ok. Fair enough :)
Yeah, it's certainly possible.
...try coming up with some catchy slogans, a few rituals, get a few followers together - who knows...
The dogma of the Church of Bremen could hold considerable power in future generations ;)
I shall now teach you the ways of my dumb- err, I mean my awesome religion! Carve a few symbols (any type, made up) on granite, and there you are, a priest reborn!
*can't help laughing*
Okay, now a question against God.
People say that God is a impartial being, and he is also all-merciful. Now, I'm going to go a bit technical here.
Impartial means to punish (or reward) a person, at exactly the level he deserves, while all-merciful has the meaning that the being treats the person under trial with a higher level of kindness and *whatever* than he deserves. How, in this way, can a being be impartial and all-merciful at the same time? He, if impartial, cannot be all-merciful, and vice versa! The only resolutions to this argument are:
1. That it is not as technical as I described
2. Drop one of the descriptions: all-merciful or impartial - thus destroying the argument altogether.
3. Drop all 2 of them.
There are many such contradictions among the descriptions of God, such as omniscience and free will (they're in a pair). I'll describe this tomorrow when I have more energy.
I detect something here.. Well, its off to bed for me now.
People say that God is a impartial being, and he is also all-merciful. Now, I'm going to go a bit technical here.
Yeah, I very much agree that 'all-merciful' is a bit of a misnomer, especially considering the behaviours of many of the deity's this term is apllied to...
Adn yes, it does grate somewhat against God disallowing people on any basis. Many theological outlooks almost seem to 'tie God's hands' in cases of divine judgement.
i.e. God loves all mankind, but simply cannot allow those back who don't do blah blah...
...implying God has no option to unconditionally forgive in some cases. If that doesn't bring doubt into the 'all-merciful' clause, it certainly brings doubt into the 'omni-potent' claim...
I think in reality, the term 'all-merciful' would be treated with caution by sensible theists (of particular faiths)...
There are many such contradictions among the descriptions of God, such as omniscience and free will (they're in a pair).
Hmm, I disagree on this one I think. As much as a God 'could' have control of everything if it so wished, you can argue it can also choose when not to have control as well. So it could control everything BUT human desicisons (without paradox), for example...
But the all-powerful tag can have many other paradoxes tied to it. They've already been debated to death in this forum already... (e.g. can God make a stone so heavy that even he / she / it can't lift it?).
...these may seem like nothing more than mind-exersises -and to a certain extent they are. But a more serious point lies underneath...
...how exactly do you prove 'infinite' power?!
Originally posted by Druid Bremen
I never said there was no evidence. I simply said that in my analogy, the evidence was perfectly balanced, in a sense. You cannot say that you are a body at rest, because the different sides are tugging at you with their numerous evidences.
No, I said there was no evidence, as i don't think there really is yet (and may never be). I guess you could say that there is a bit more evidence on the side of evolution than creationism... but i wouldn't claim that evolution (or any scientific discovery) ruled out the existance of a "higher being". As such there is no evidence to base a conclusion upon.
As such, i'm quite happily at rest, and don't particularly feel any tugs on me in either direction. There aren't ANY theological developments that are going to happen that will provide evidence of god*, and there are no scientific ones that will disprove him.
*unless (a) he decides to appear to us all, or (b) he makes himself known to me personally. And even (b) would only affect me, and could probably be claimed to be my imagination by others.
---------------
I have no problem with people who feel that god has spoken to them and they have a job to do. I don't always agree with them (and they could be imagining it) but at least they truely have a basis for their faith.
I do have a problem with people who just blindly believe becase they always have, or because they were brought up that way, or becaue they aren't open to anything else. It is always easier to carry on as you always have.... going to church every week if you always did, your parents always did, your community always does. But that isn't belief. That is routine (or insularism).
People can do great things in the name of religion as well as bad, but i do feel that the majority of any religion do not "believe" in it as such, they just go along with it.
---------------------
As for the issue of heaven or hell. It seems to me that practicing a religion in the hope of recieving a reward or avoiding a punishment isn't particulary noble. I'd like to think any higher being wouldn't do things that way. He'd want us to do things that were good, because they were good. Not because they would get us into heaven. Come to think of it, i can't see why a god would be worried about having us worship him.
I don't know about your definition of omniscience, but to me it means knowing everything, both in the future and in the past. It sort of contradicts free will of God. I'll explain.
Let us say God is omniscient (don't drag in free will yet). He knows everything. That means what he did in the past, and what he is going to do in the future. Since he knows what he is going to do in the future, does that leave anything for him to decide? Doesn't that effectively remove free will? Doesn't that make free will an illusion? I'm not sure, but I think it contradicts.
Originally posted by Druid Bremen
I don't know about your definition of omniscience, but to me it means knowing everything, both in the future and in the past. It sort of contradicts free will of God. I'll explain.
Let us say God is omniscient (don't drag in free will yet). He knows everything. That means what he did in the past, and what he is going to do in the future. Since he knows what he is going to do in the future, does that leave anything for him to decide? Doesn't that effectively remove free will? Doesn't that make free will an illusion? I'm not sure, but I think it contradicts.
Well, if you're going to comment on one of Gods "super powers", why not mention the all-powerful part? I can't say what God does or thinks, but isn't it possible that he can tune out knowing everything about everything to the extent that he doesn't know the outcome of every persons choice? Just a thought.
Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Well, if you're going to comment on one of Gods "super powers", why not mention the all-powerful part? I can't say what God does or thinks, but isn't it possible that he can tune out knowing everything about everything to the extent that he doesn't know the outcome of every persons choice? Just a thought.
Indeed, that's correct. The only resolutions to this are:
1. He is partially/not omniscient.
2. He has no free will.
3. He has none of the two.
I think that pretty much covers it, yes?
Hey, you're the one claiming to have an open mind on the subject. You can take or leave what I said. It's not my place or desire to sway you one way or the other. I, to be frank, don't care what you think about religion. Which is what, from what I've read in the senate and swamp a dozen times over, is what all you anti-religion/Christian types supposedly like. I'm not trying, nor do I care enough about you, to "convert" you. Which seems weird to me, because on the same hand, I care enough to not try and force something on you. But I do it by not caring. Weird. Anyways, unlike yourself, I don't profess to know or hypothesize what God wants or does, or why. I was just offering a possible scenario. I'd check my underwear, but I'm confident I don't give a ****.
However, I would think that what I said in my previous post would almost certainly not agree with what you said.