Thread: So...if you're SO sure that no "God" exists...

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

No, because I live my life thinking there is no god. I don't ever dwell on the possibility because I think it's a waste of time. An agnostic goes through life thinking that there's some supernatural force of some sort which probably hasn't been represented accurately by past and current religions. Something like that.

The Agnostics I talk to all say they don't bother about it either because you will never know anyway ... They say you can never know He does exist, and you cannot say for certain He does. Often they only talk in a religious debate to tell off both sides.

Aside from that last bit, doesn't that look like your opinion?

[Edit]

Originally Posted by Mark75

At least around here, those that call themselves atheist assert that certain gods do not exist, but admit that they cannot ever be completely certain (about this or anything, being only human). Further, they are agnostic in regard to more vague definitions of god ("the creator") such as the one in this post which leaves it to a very broad range of possible things.

So ... in practice they are more Agnostic then Atheistic?
When I debate about God, I always (or almost always) call Him the Creator because I know that if my theory is correct, then virtually every religion came from the original relationship, and if this is the case, then it becomes very difficult to specify which view of God is the most accurate.

I hope I put that across right.

Originally Posted by Keeper

The Agnostics I talk to all say they don't bother about it either because you will never know anyway ... They say you can never know He does exist, and you cannot say for certain He does. Often they only talk in a religious debate to tell off both sides.

Aside from that last bit, doesn't that look like your opinion?

Look I see what you are saying. Yes you can never know for sure... but same thing goes for fairies. I'm not gonna sit around being agnostic about fairies. I do not believe in any kind of supernatural being of any sort. If I say I'm agnostic, people will assume I would care enough to imagine all the sorts of things god could be, what he could be like, what he could want... and I think that's a waste of time. I am an atheist. Not agnostic. Hang on lemme go look up the official definition of atheist...

Edit: Yes O, based on the lack of evidence, I assert that he/she/it doesn't exist.

Edit edit: From websters - "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God." That's me, though I hate the word "denies." Implies that a truth is being denied.

Ok. Let's get into fairies.

What sort of arguements can you make for or against fairies?

We can say, for example, that we have absolutely no evidence of fairies. Nothing. Nil. Nada. We have stories that, as far as I know, can be traced back to being nothing but fiction. (If I'm wrong, and fairies have a base as being regarded as actual creatures, then let me know.)

On the other had, we have an idea of a "consciousness" that created this "universe" to a degree of more-than-impressive physiology. A system so vast, yet so self-sustaining, that it's said (by us, at least) to have always been, and will always be.

In anything other than this (macro) universe, we could only attribute that sort of order to something that had been well though-out. Can you think of anything else, on a smaller scale, that works so well, born from chaos?

Taking that into consideration, although nothing definitive, I say we have more rationale for belief in a creator than fairies. No?

Hang on it's late, I can't understand half of what I read at this hour.

Are you using the watchmaker argument?

Oi whatever, I'm not in the mood for this at the moment. I don't think any supernatural beings exist, and I don't want to waste my time fantasizing about what said supernatural beings could be like. I'll see you tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Look I see what you are saying. Yes you can never know for sure... but same thing goes for fairies. I'm not gonna sit around being agnostic about fairies. I do not believe in any kind of supernatural being of any sort.

Now this has got me interested. You don't WANT to believe in anything supernatural, but you admit it might exist. Is this because you think all unsubstantiated belief is a crutch?

If I say I'm agnostic, people will assume I would care enough to imagine all the sorts of things god could be, what he could be like, what he could want... and I think that's a waste of time.

Agnostics don't do that. At least, all the ones I've spoken to. They are simply people who say "Who knows?", refuse to listen to either side and go on with there lives without ever bothering about an "Unkowability".

I am an atheist. Not agnostic. Hang on lemme go look up the official definition of atheist...

Edit: Yes O, based on the lack of evidence, I assert that he/she/it doesn't exist.

Did you just change your view on God? You are 100% certain that He doesn't exist?

Edit edit: From websters - "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God." That's me, though I hate the word "denies." Implies that a truth is being denied.

Are you sure its not?

Based on your previous statement, I think you are Agnostic. Agnostics don't bother about religion. That is what makes them Agnostic.

But I DO bother about religion. If I didn't bother about it, I wouldn't be in R/S.

Look, you are really misunderstanding what I am saying. I can't say 100% god doesn't exist in the exact same way I can't say that magical shit appears in my toilet when I'm not looking with 100% certainty. The fact of the matter is you can't prove or disprove these things. But logically, one might assert that there probably is no god, there probably is no magic shit.

What exactly are you trying to do, Keeper?

Edit: Must - keep - away... I shall come back later.

Edit edit: Just so there's no misunderstanding, I honestly don't have any issues with people being agnostic or even spiritual or whatever, as long as it's not an organized religion.... then it really doesn't matter.

Hey Onerighonaut when i saw this thread i did a google search and i came up with this Website: http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...ismintro2.html

You should note however that they provide no direct evidence of god at all; only so called "indirect evidence". Take a look if you like.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Hey Onerighonaut when i saw this thread i did a google search and i came up with this Website: http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...ismintro2.html

You should note however that they provide no direct evidence of god at all; only so called "indirect evidence". Take a look if you like.

Thanks. Just bookmarked it. I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
Right now, I'm having enough trouble just keeping up with my own text - let alone reading that site.

I think I'm going a little off-topic, here, but...

I'd agree with you about the use of the term atheist. It causes more problems than it's worth, I think. Not only is it not necessarily accurate, it's also easy for someone to say "Well, you're an atheist. Atheists are wrong, atheists deny god in their hearts, etc." So proclaiming yourself as such leaves you open to these sort of dismissals. However, if you avoid the label game and simply reasonably refute illogical claims and support correct ones where you find them, the only applicable response is addressing the argument itself. Anything else is an obvious cop-out to all involved.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

What exactly are you trying to do, Keeper?

Find out if you really are an Atheist.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

But I DO bother about religion. If I didn't bother about it, I wouldn't be in R/S.

Look, you are really misunderstanding what I am saying. I can't say 100% god doesn't exist in the exact same way I can't say that magical shit appears in my toilet when I'm not looking with 100% certainty. The fact of the matter is you can't prove or disprove these things. But logically, one might assert that there probably is no god, there probably is no magic shit.

Actually, if you want to talk about logic and probabilities, the probability of there being a 'god' under the broad definition is much greater than the probability of their being magical shit in your toilet. In fact, as the definition of 'god' is broadened, the probability increases. Logically, there is a definition of god that has a probability of 1 (absolute certainty) of being true.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, if you want to talk about logic and probabilities, the probability of there being a 'god' under the broad definition is much greater than the probability of their being magical shit in your toilet. In fact, as the definition of 'god' is broadened, the probability increases. Logically, there is a definition of god that has a probability of 1 (absolute certainty) of being true.

QFT

Nice!:bravo:

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, if you want to talk about logic and probabilities, the probability of there being a 'god' under the broad definition is much greater than the probability of their being magical shit in your toilet. In fact, as the definition of 'god' is broadened, the probability increases. Logically, there is a definition of god that has a probability of 1 (absolute certainty) of being true.

Of course, here you're implying that the more sensibility with which humans attribute to the thing which may or may not exist increases or decreases its probability of existing. I'm not saying that's completely wrong (as it has some sense to say "oh, so Jesus didn't really do all that magical mumbo-jumbo and it was all just a metaphor? Christianity has perhaps some more merit, then"), but it still is rather fallacious. For example, what if we broadened Mes Tarrant's magical shit? What if it became magical urine, and it did not necessarily present its self before Mes, but in fact beyond any one in the world? What if this magical shit or urine was not in fact restricted to the realm of toilets, bathrooms, or plumbing alike? What if we let this magical shit or urine be present anywhere in the world, no, anywhere in the UNIVERSE, no... the MULTIVERSE (as it were) at any point in the history of time! Now, as we both have to agree, the probability for this magical waste to exist increases to one, as we continue to broaden the definition and loosen the restrictions on its existence. Right...?

Wrong. I don't see how "logically" the probability can increase to one. I suppose your assumption on this basis is that we extend the definition of "god" to the point where it is no longer considered a "god," then I agree. We can broaden the definition of "god" to say something which created the universe or makes things happen. Hey, the big bang and the laws of physics are god. In fact, I agree with your statement. As we broaden the definition, the probability of it existing comes to one, because we broaden the definition enough to include things which we already know do or have existed. And as such, it is simply a trivial statement to refer to god in the sense of a "broadened definition."

Ah, thank goodness there are more articulate people here!