|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 22, 2018 4:12:10 GMT
It's Gods, plural.
I'm sick and tired of all these selective atheists who only believe in one.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 22, 2018 4:17:59 GMT
True, butt for those who require an answer, that is not satisfactory. Well, that would seem to be their problem. And what is your problem with the spelling of the word 'but'? God's will? Since there isn't a God he can't have a butt!
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Mar 22, 2018 4:23:14 GMT
Well, that would seem to be their problem. And what is your problem with the spelling of the word 'but'? God's will? Since there isn't a God he can't have a butt! Butt you have one, right?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 22, 2018 5:06:25 GMT
Since there isn't a God he can't have a butt! Butt you have one, right? ALL God's chillun got a butt!
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 22, 2018 18:32:49 GMT
'I don't know' is another answer. True, butt for those who require an answer, that is not satisfactory. But in the end (no pun intended), don't you think even those who claim God is the "answer" have to eventually resort to "I don't know" when asked, for example, how God does this or that? So none of us are ever immune to having to admit we don't know some things sooner or later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2018 18:46:05 GMT
But i find it far more likely that God doesn't exist. Now feel free to tell me how wrong i am. Nope. Your opinion matches my own.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 22, 2018 19:05:58 GMT
Nobody knows if there is a God. Then why believe? Why not believe. That no one knows also means no one knows there is no God, therefore the decision to believe or not believe is moot in this context, either choice could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 22, 2018 19:33:00 GMT
Why not believe. That no one knows also means no one knows there is no God, therefore the decision to believe or not believe is moot in this context, either choice could be wrong. Gad, I think that you are the only agnostic theist I've ever known! The usual definitions are this: I am an agnostic atheist, but I could be wrong. You are an agnostic theist, but you could be wrong. It's interesting that neither of us have the compulsion to change the other's mind!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 22, 2018 20:07:34 GMT
Why not believe. That no one knows also means no one knows there is no God, therefore the decision to believe or not believe is moot in this context, either choice could be wrong. I disagree with this notion. It is not a preference. It would be far easier for me to be an atheist or agnostic, but it would also be dishonest for me to be either of those things (No, I am not saying atheists and agnostics are being dishonest).There comes a point in time that you see enough things, experience enough things that the knowledge is not one based on choice. Of course, since this knowledge is based in large part on personal experience, then it's entirely possible that, given further information, what we know now can be proven wrong later, but there's no reason to either jump the gun or live life in a fog of doubt. Belief is a different thing. We can believe anything and base it absolutely on nothing other than a preference. believe can be totally blind to the reality of something.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 22, 2018 20:09:22 GMT
Why not believe. That no one knows also means no one knows there is no God, therefore the decision to believe or not believe is moot in this context, either choice could be wrong. Gad, I think that you are the only agnostic theist I've ever known! The usual definitions are this: I am an agnostic atheist, but I could be wrong. You are an agnostic theist, but you could be wrong. It's interesting that neither of us have the compulsion to change the other's mind! I am glad that we don't feel the need to change one another. I am happy where I am. Of course I am open to new information as well. I think everyone has to accept some agnosticism, the fact it that we simply do not know means that anyone claiming to know is delusional. Everyone must accept some degree of not knowing (at this point in time).
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 22, 2018 20:20:39 GMT
Why not believe. That no one knows also means no one knows there is no God, therefore the decision to believe or not believe is moot in this context, either choice could be wrong. I disagree with this notion. It is not a preference. It would be far easier for me to be an atheist or agnostic, but it would also be dishonest for me to be either of those things (No, I am not saying atheists and agnostics are being dishonest).There comes a point in time that you see enough things, experience enough things that the knowledge is not one based on choice. Of course, since this knowledge is based in large part on personal experience, then it's entirely possible that, given further information, what we know now can be proven wrong later, but there's no reason to either jump the gun or live life in a fog of doubt. Belief is a different thing. We can believe anything and base it absolutely on nothing other than a preference. believe can be totally blind to the reality of something. Choice may be the wrong word, but at the end of the day you have decided to interpret events to conclude that there is a God, another person may have interpreted those events and come to a different conclusion. Yes we could believe something based on absolutely nothing in theory, in practice I think that is an unlikely scenario.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 22, 2018 23:57:20 GMT
Why not believe. That no one knows also means no one knows there is no God, therefore the decision to believe or not believe is moot in this context, either choice could be wrong. Why not believe? Lack of credible evidence AND the fact that there are some pretty important issues involved in believing. If you believe that there is a higher power than yourself which could potentially interfere in your life at any time, then IMHO it takes away the incredibly deep sense of personal responsibility and autonomy that I wish for in my life. I guess this is why I am attracted to some of the tenets of Buddhist philosophy and I am appalled at some of the tenets of other religions, particularly Christianity as it is the one I am surrounded by. Being told what to do and how to do it, how to feel, how to act and react by a religion which promulgates an objective morality and imposes itself of me, is not something I want to have anything to do with. That is why I cannot and will not believe in a god. I would rather take my chances with the lottery of life on this planet and try to do the best I can MY WAY. cue Frank Sinatra.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 23, 2018 1:04:51 GMT
Why not believe. That no one knows also means no one knows there is no God, therefore the decision to believe or not believe is moot in this context, either choice could be wrong. Why not believe? Lack of credible evidence AND the fact that there are some pretty important issues involved in believing. If you believe that there is a higher power than yourself which could potentially interfere in your life at any time, then IMHO it takes away the incredibly deep sense of personal responsibility and autonomy that I wish for in my life. I guess this is why I am attracted to some of the tenets of Buddhist philosophy and I am appalled at some of the tenets of other religions, particularly Christianity as it is the one I am surrounded by. Being told what to do and how to do it, how to feel, how to act and react by a religion which promulgates an objective morality and imposes itself of me, is not something I want to have anything to do with. That is why I cannot and will not believe in a god. I would rather take my chances with the lottery of life on this planet and try to do the best I can MY WAY. cue Frank Sinatra. All your opinion and welcome to it. I do not experience what you experience in religion, but what you are arguing against is believing in Christianity. My point was there is no proof there is or is not a God, belief is therefore personal, you ask my why believe in a general way, in a general response the reply if believe or don't given that no one knows it makes no difference. Your response was as if you had asked me why I believe in your interpretation of Christianity. I don't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 1:54:22 GMT
Why not believe. That no one knows also means no one knows there is no God, therefore the decision to believe or not believe is moot in this context, either choice could be wrong. Wouldn't the usual tendency in such a case be to go to the default presumption of non-existence? As Russel once said, there could be a small china teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars; nobody can prove that there isn't. But one would be somewhat foolish to believe in it simply because it cannot be proven not to be there. After all, if one believed in everything that could not be disproved, one would wind up believing an awful lot of very strange things, yes?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 23, 2018 2:07:13 GMT
Why not believe? Lack of credible evidence AND the fact that there are some pretty important issues involved in believing. If you believe that there is a higher power than yourself which could potentially interfere in your life at any time, then IMHO it takes away the incredibly deep sense of personal responsibility and autonomy that I wish for in my life. I guess this is why I am attracted to some of the tenets of Buddhist philosophy and I am appalled at some of the tenets of other religions, particularly Christianity as it is the one I am surrounded by. Being told what to do and how to do it, how to feel, how to act and react by a religion which promulgates an objective morality and imposes itself of me, is not something I want to have anything to do with. That is why I cannot and will not believe in a god. I would rather take my chances with the lottery of life on this planet and try to do the best I can MY WAY. cue Frank Sinatra. All your opinion and welcome to it. I do not experience what you experience in religion, but what you are arguing against is believing in Christianity. My point was there is no proof there is or is not a God, belief is therefore personal, you ask my why believe in a general way, in a general response the reply if believe or don't given that no one knows it makes no difference. Your response was as if you had asked me why I believe in your interpretation of Christianity. I don't. Utter nonsense. You couldn't get a more general comment than my which applies to all versions of god.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 23, 2018 2:16:15 GMT
Why not believe. That no one knows also means no one knows there is no God, therefore the decision to believe or not believe is moot in this context, either choice could be wrong. Wouldn't the usual tendency in such a case be to go to the default presumption of non-existence? As Russel once said, there could be a small china teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars; nobody can prove that there isn't. But one would be somewhat foolish to believe in it simply because it cannot be proven not to be there. After all, if one believed in everything that could not be disproved, one would wind up believing an awful lot of very strange things, yes? Yeah I see your point. I don't agree with Bertrand's teapot, a teapot is an object inside our reality, a God is not. In any case God (for me) is an interpretation of the presentation of the universe. But in any case is the teapot things not supposed to be an exercise in burden of proof rather than the actual existence of God? I must confess in that case I find it erroneous as well, the burden of proof is on the claimant, I am very careful never to assert that God exists because I do not know, I do not find the same thing with atheists, often they will make the claim that God does not exist , but they have no proof. Perhaps the usual tendency would be to not believe something that is not proven, I personally choose to interpret the universe as having a God.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 23, 2018 2:19:26 GMT
All your opinion and welcome to it. I do not experience what you experience in religion, but what you are arguing against is believing in Christianity. My point was there is no proof there is or is not a God, belief is therefore personal, you ask my why believe in a general way, in a general response the reply if believe or don't given that no one knows it makes no difference. Your response was as if you had asked me why I believe in your interpretation of Christianity. I don't. Utter nonsense. You couldn't get a more general comment than my which applies to all versions of god. which you ruined by following it up and calling out tenets of religion that you apply to it; the point is that there is no proof either way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when you are talking about something as conceptual as a God.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 23, 2018 2:27:34 GMT
Utter nonsense. You couldn't get a more general comment than my which applies to all versions of god. which you ruined by following it up and calling out tenets of religion that you apply to it; the point is that there is no proof either way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when you are talking about something as conceptual as a God. Those tenets were also general and not necessarily applying only to Christianity which I used as an example pointing out the difference in philosophy to my preference for the Buddhist ones. What is the point of a 'conceptual' god whose main modus operandi is to influence the lives of humans, when in my view, we are quite able to be arbiters of our own fate?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 3:43:52 GMT
Wouldn't the usual tendency in such a case be to go to the default presumption of non-existence? As Russel once said, there could be a small china teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars; nobody can prove that there isn't. But one would be somewhat foolish to believe in it simply because it cannot be proven not to be there. After all, if one believed in everything that could not be disproved, one would wind up believing an awful lot of very strange things, yes? Yeah I see your point. I don't agree with Bertrand's teapot, a teapot is an object inside our reality, a God is not. I'm not sure why that makes a difference? I mean, I don't entirely buy Russell's teapot because we know about teapots, and we know that it is likely beyond our capability to get one to such an orbit. So there are reasons to believe that it isn't there. But the general principle applies even to the possible and reasonable. I could define a precise orbit and claim that a small asteroid exists in that orbit. There is nothing inherently unlikely about that, it's entirely consistent with reality that such an asteroid could exist... but it would still be foolish to believe in it without proof. Agreed; it is just as wrong to assert that "there is no god" as it is to assert that "there is a god", IMO, because both positions make positive claims that have truth burdens. Of course some atheists would claim that they can prove god does not exist, whilst some theists claim the converse. But I disagree with both. But Russell's point was that lacking proof of a positive claim, one should default to non-belief. He would say, I think that the correct viewpoint is "I have no proof and so do not believe in god, whilst also not believing there is not god." Which is my position on the subject. May I ask why?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 23, 2018 13:16:48 GMT
I disagree with this notion. It is not a preference. It would be far easier for me to be an atheist or agnostic, but it would also be dishonest for me to be either of those things (No, I am not saying atheists and agnostics are being dishonest).There comes a point in time that you see enough things, experience enough things that the knowledge is not one based on choice. Of course, since this knowledge is based in large part on personal experience, then it's entirely possible that, given further information, what we know now can be proven wrong later, but there's no reason to either jump the gun or live life in a fog of doubt. Belief is a different thing. We can believe anything and base it absolutely on nothing other than a preference. believe can be totally blind to the reality of something. Choice may be the wrong word, but at the end of the day you have decided to interpret events to conclude that there is a God, another person may have interpreted those events and come to a different conclusion. Yes we could believe something based on absolutely nothing in theory, in practice I think that is an unlikely scenario. Well, the choice is in the option of listening to the information, researching it further, and comparing which one made the most sense. if any of those parts aren't done, then it isn't really knowledge we are basing our views on and then you would be correct that choice is what matters. After that, it would be difficult to impossible to pretend one option is the same as the other. At that point choice is removed from the equation as a result of the knowledge gained.
|
|