91 replies to this topic

[DeanAdamFry]

Crossfire-

If you think there is a grey zone where there is neither evidence for or against something, would you be as confident in me being able to turn into a cat as you are in the existence of God? That is, do all notions, no matter how arbitrary and ridiculous, deserve the same confidence as your belief in God?

Dean-

I think the question really is "Do you believe in God?", as we're not identifying with particular religious or non-religious groups, we're simply stating beliefs.

Oh right sorry, I thought it was the typical "Christian Vs Atheist" arguments.

[Murum]

Crossfire-

If you think there is a grey zone where there is neither evidence for or against something, would you be as confident in me being able to turn into a cat as you are in the existence of God? That is, do all notions, no matter how arbitrary and ridiculous, deserve the same confidence as your belief in God?

Dean-

I think the question really is "Do you believe in God?", as we're not identifying with particular religious or non-religious groups, we're simply stating beliefs.

Reaver
If you read carefully what i replied to Dark you would have seen i already answered this and i kinda repeated the answer to this about 3 times now in this thread am not trying to be offensive here and apologies if my reply might have felt like that, just don't wanna repeat it or rewrite my answer again in a 4th way so i will quote myself here to what i replied to Dark
highlighted to what i believe would answer what you have asked me read all of it for more insight if you wish

That is indeed an interesting question, as for an answer i cannot deny that in due time i might find some things that i categorically could be against at, even in their "possibility" of existence.
However as it stands today and in the way that i have a perception of the world I'd answer, as long as there is nobody able to prove me otherwise and nobody to prove me correct i could even consider "that" as a possibility, with the following ideology, just because we have not seen any "signs" or any "crumb bread trail" does not necessarily prove them non-existent, be it this world or another, this universe, or another, this big bang or another one.

However to your question i do consider them both a possibility but not at the same range, i consider a "God" existence, some things are more possible and some things less probable but i do not deny their possibility, although i do consider the perception of each individual person into account with each having their own interpretation of how the world works and what properties do some...say ideologies hold to them and translate them in a way they will find them rational to their mind(my mind is well complicated ).
For me it all comes down to how does one perceive Possibility/Probability or like you said 'the arbitrary', how does one perceive "God" do you perceive it as an entity only? could you see it as something else, an event say, an action that happens(the God part is an example no need to answer it, as that is a theological discussion)?
For me the concept of possibilities as i perceive them have some slight variations than what could others perceive them as such, i add to such a concept, the property of "the random principle" however that is an other subject even albeit relevant(if wished i can go in more detail).

~Crossfire

[ReaverMage]

No offence taken

But I still don't see why you would give them equal confidence... none of your posts have gone into that

[Murum]

No offence taken

But I still don't see why you would give them equal confidence... none of your posts have gone into that

heh i guess my reply is not as clear as i see it in my head when am typing it down apologies on that well...
i don't give them equal confidence and i quote me again xD

However to your question i do consider them both a possibility but not at the same range

both a possibility but "not at the same range"(i categorize possibilities to different priorities i can't tell you how i set those priorities cause every human being has his own way of setting parameters to the way they think)

it's like you are asking me to explain how i see the world m8 kinda hard to put it in words.
hope this answer can hopefully satisfy you even if it is just a little.



also to note something, in a previous reply you said something on the lines of

'do all notions, no matter how arbitrary and ridiculous, deserve the same confidence as your belief in God?'

just to clarify i hold beliefs but i never said i hold a belief to "God" not in the sense of religiousness as it follows today standard's of society

either way typed my thoughts about the subject to this topic like i said hope they some sense

[ReaverMage]

Ah that makes more sense now... thx

When I said "Your belief in God" I didn't mean that in a religious sense, I meant more in your belief that a God could exist.

[Murum]

Ah that makes more sense now... thx

When I said "Your belief in God" I didn't mean that in a religious sense, I meant more in your belief that a God could exist.

heh i see thanks for clarifying that Reaver

[Donkzy]

I will keep this short as not to upset just very good disscussionists as yourselves but, No God does not exsist

but if you look in any culture from around the world and people are in trouble, even if they have never heard of a God type being, they will still ask / pray to some higher power for help, That is what God is

[Apolon]

i will tell just this im pure Christian.. so help me god...

[Lycan]

Just stumbled upon this topic; didn't expect it to be here, as Dark quite rightly said, there are fine lines and eggshells everywhere.
However, I thought I'd throw a few things in there, because I am also deeply religious:

1) We try and understand God. An ant in your back garden has no comprehension (at all!) with regards to what is happening on the moon (for example). Those are the limits of our knowledge. We cannot expect to be so arrogant (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) to think our knowledge is sufficient enough that we can understand his presence etc. This in itself is the definition of faith. To believe in the unseen. Yes, it's not convenient, but then again, believing doesn't promote dark practices or ill deeds; in fact it encourages the contrary.

2) The famous question: why does God allow evil in the world when he has the power to stop it?
Well, if you invite a guy you love and trust into your house and he starts to mess the place up, not clean up after himself, use abusive language in front of youngsters, and eventually attacks your wife and kids etc. will you tolerate it? Of course not. Why should God when our crimes are in the billions?
Our greatest gift and greatest curse is our free will. With it we were given responsibility and we have abused it time and time again. Killing, stealing, sodomy, lying cheating the list goes on and on. We do not repent, nor do we relent. Everyone on earth is God's beautiful and unique creation. To have them killed, cheated and hurt, and for thousands of years, to repeatedly ignore his lessons brought down by messengers and prophets and continue to do evil is obviously going to anger God. Why shouldn't it?
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that we cannot expect to abuse our right to free will, and then expect absolutely no retribution in return... If we did nothing wrong, why would God need to punish us?

3) There are two camps: "I believe" and "I don't". If you believed and died, you either are right and go to heaven, or there is no heaven or hell, and you are just dead. (Win or Neutral result). If you disbelieve and die, you are either wrong or just remain dead. (Lose or Neutral result). Statistically speaking, believing is better lol. I'm simply too afraid to reside in the latter. Of course, these are my own beliefs. Please don't get the impression that I am "bible bashing" because (a) I'm not a christian and (b) that is not my intention. I just think it's too big a risk to take for me, since after death, its forever.

4) We say there is no proof, yet we have all the proof we need. Who's to say that the Universe wasn't created by God using the Big Bang? Why has there never been another event like the big bang which has resulted in intelligent life? Things on this planet are perfect. That is very, very, VERY difficult to acheive without divine intervention. Scientifically, I think the argument that a combination of gases can create such a beautiful and perfect world is not plausible for me. Maybe you can expand on this?


Sorry for ressing this downed post, but I love these topics, because I love understanding what others have to say about my arguments...

Hope I haven't caused offence, If I have, I truly didn't mean to.

[Darkademic]

I'm tempted to copy and paste an enormous debate I've been having with a friend on Facebook (476 replies) which basically covers all the above points. It'll take some time to arrange it all though.

Basically the issue here is epistemological - i.e. the branch of philosophy that deals with the questions of how one acquires and validates knowledge. My position boils down to God being a superfluous and arbitrary abstraction.

So point 4 should actually be point 1, as all the other points assume God exists. Point 4 makes several assumptions itself - who says there hasn't been another big bang? How can you say things on this planet are perfect? By what standard are they perfect? How do you know perfection is "difficult" without divine intervention?

I absolutely love debating any area of philosophy, and have done so extensively for almost a decade now, but I absolutely mean no disrespect or offense - I am just stating my position.

[ReaverMage]

Just stumbled upon this topic; didn't expect it to be here, as Dark quite rightly said, there are fine lines and eggshells everywhere.
However, I thought I'd throw a few things in there, because I am also deeply religious:

1) We try and understand God. An ant in your back garden has no comprehension (at all!) with regards to what is happening on the moon (for example). Those are the limits of our knowledge. We cannot expect to be so arrogant (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) to think our knowledge is sufficient enough that we can understand his presence etc. This in itself is the definition of faith. To believe in the unseen. Yes, it's not convenient, but then again, believing doesn't promote dark practices or ill deeds; in fact it encourages the contrary.

I agree, an ant has no comprehension of what is happening on the moon. I also agree, we cannot easily comprehend something that is completely beyond us (e.g. how the universe began). However, this doesn't mean anything in relation to god. There is equally as much proof for the existence of god as there is for the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. The burden of proof is on the claimant, and there is no proof whatsoever for a God. In fact, there is infinitely more evidence to the contrary.


2) The famous question: why does God allow evil in the world when he has the power to stop it?
Well, if you invite a guy you love and trust into your house and he starts to mess the place up, not clean up after himself, use abusive language in front of youngsters, and eventually attacks your wife and kids etc. will you tolerate it? Of course not. Why should God when our crimes are in the billions?

So you're saying just-born children and completely innocent people are culpable for the crimes of hardened criminals and people like Hitler (if you'll excuse the Hitler reference)? I don't really see your logic here.

Our greatest gift and greatest curse is our free will.

If there were a god, the most loving thing to do would be to make the world perfect. How is it loving to allow atrocities to occur?

With it we were given responsibility and we have abused it time and time again. Killing, stealing, sodomy, lying cheating the list goes on and on.

And sodomy is bad because?

We do not repent, nor do we relent. Everyone on earth is God's beautiful and unique creation. To have them killed, cheated and hurt, and for thousands of years, to repeatedly ignore his lessons brought down by messengers and prophets and continue to do evil is obviously going to anger God. Why shouldn't it?

So god is angry with us, even though he set the path that we all tread? (According to most religious people atleast)

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that we cannot expect to abuse our right to free will, and then expect absolutely no retribution in return... If we did nothing wrong, why would God need to punish us?

If god were all knowing, he would know that all of these things would happen. So it's ridiculous for him to then punish us for doing them.

3) There are two camps: "I believe" and "I don't". If you believed and died, you either are right and go to heaven, or there is no heaven or hell, and you are just dead. (Win or Neutral result).

But during your life you were limited in what you could do. You spent countless hours doing pointless and boring things with a belief in in something non-existent. So if god doesn't exist and you believe there is a negative result. And if you believed simply because you wanted the rewards rather than out of genuine faith, couldn't that be perceived as selfish?

If you disbelieve and die, you are either wrong or just remain dead. (Lose or Neutral result).

Isn't it more likely that god would allow a genuinely decent person who did great things of their own accord (instead of because they were threatened with Hell and bribed with Heaven) into heaven? And during your life, you are allowed to do what you want and have a much more fulfilling and fun life.

Statistically speaking, believing is better lol.

Believing is positive or negative, not believing (if one doesn't "sin") is positive or positive. So I think the statistics are weighted towards atheism.

I'm simply too afraid to reside in the latter.

Should you let fear of a lack of afterlife limit your life? I don't think so.

Of course, these are my own beliefs. Please don't get the impression that I am "bible bashing" because (a) I'm not a christian and (b) that is not my intention. I just think it's too big a risk to take for me, since after death, its forever.

Don't worry, this is a purely intellectual debate. Nothing personal intended


4) We say there is no proof, yet we have all the proof we need. Who's to say that the Universe wasn't created by God using the Big Bang?

Who's to say it wasn't created by a chicken in a spaceship?

Why has there never been another event like the big bang which has resulted in intelligent life?

There might have been in other universes, we just don't know. And this doesn't mean god caused the big bang.

Things on this planet are perfect.

Things on this planet are NOT by any means perfect. "Killing, stealing, sodomy, lying cheating the list goes on and on." And even if they were, that doesn't mean a god created it.

That is very, very, VERY difficult to acheive without divine intervention.

I'm afraid I disagree with you here. There is nothing to suggest divine intervention.

Scientifically, I think the argument that a combination of gases can create such a beautiful and perfect world is not plausible for me. Maybe you can expand on this?

http://en.wikipedia....ry_of_the_Earth

Sorry for ressing this downed post, but I love these topics, because I love understanding what others have to say about my arguments...

Always interesting

Hope I haven't caused offence, If I have, I truly didn't mean to.

Of course not. As I said, this is a purely intellectual debate.

[HellsingDS]

Urgghh... too much to read and after glancing over this thread I've got to say that some people here ought to chill and open their minds a little. I'm not religious or anything as I prefer to remain agnostic and keep an open mind to the possibilities although I will agree that the conventional understanding of 'god' is quite absurd. Everything about 'god' just screams human rather than an 'all-knowing being'. Saying that, I still won't say that there is no 'god' because really, who has the authority to say that? Who actually knows that there's not something beyond our current science? I mean, scientific theory is becoming rather philosophical these days. Theories such as the holographic principle seem to blow our whole human perception of the world away... theres too much to fathom behind it. I'm sorry but there's still too much to learn yet to be able to say anything with such strong conviction, as much as I would like to.

I was once a pretty solid atheist until I started to cool my ego a bit and started taking things in a little more. I realised that by being an atheist and preaching the wrongs of religion I was becoming the beast I was trying to conquer. Atheism has all the same catalysts to cause all the same wrongs as religion does. You can also never force someone to your way of thinking either, if you do so you only strengthen their resolve and turn them against you... human pride is tricky like that. The best way to change anything for the better is to lead by example, to solve your own problems before you meddle in others.

The real problem is in our nature so instead I try to see the good behind religion rather than focusing on the bad.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share my opinion with you guys. I'll let you carry on.

Edited by HellsingDS, 25 March 2012 - 01:56 pm.

[Darkademic]

Urgghh... too much to read and after glancing over this thread I've got to say that some people here ought to chill and open their minds a little. I'm not religious or anything as I prefer to remain agnostic and keep an open mind to the possibilities although I will agree that the conventional understanding of 'god' is quite absurd. Everything about 'god' just screams human rather than an 'all-knowing being'. Saying that, I still won't say that there is no 'god' because really, who has the authority to say that? Who actually knows that there's not something beyond our current science? I mean, scientific theory is becoming rather philosophical these days. Theories such as the holographic principle seem to blow our whole human perception of the world away... theres too much to fathom behind it. I'm sorry but there's still too much to learn yet to be able to say anything with such strong conviction as much as I would like to.

I was once a pretty solid atheist until I started to cool my ego a bit and started taking things in a little more. I realised that by being an atheist and preaching the wrongs of religion I was becoming the beast I was trying to conquer. Atheism has all the same catalysts to cause all the same wrongs as religion does. You can also never force someone to your way of thinking either, if you do so you only strengthen their resolve and turn them against you... human pride is tricky like that. The best way to change anything for the better is to lead by example, to solve your own problems before you meddle in others.

The real problem is in our nature so instead I try to see the good behind religion rather than the bad.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share my opinion with you guys. I'll let you carry on.

I should point out that agnosticism and atheism are in two separate categories, agnosticism isn't some kind of middle-ground. You're either a theist, or an atheist. Saying that you don't (or can't) know either way still qualifies as atheism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk



The Gods proposed by specific religions can be disproven because they are self-contradictory, like a square circle. God as an empty concept on the other hand, is just that, and should not be given any consideration whatsoever.

As for trying to change someone's opinion, I wouldn't be so sure. My entire world-view was changed through a forum debate, and I remain incredibly grateful for those who argued against me for ~8 months before I finally came around. That said, over ten years of debating across the Internet, I don't think I've witnessed anyone "converting" (i.e. dropping strongly held beliefs) in a forum debate other than myself.

[Vetrie]

I don't believe in God.

[HellsingDS]

I still prefer to stand by the term agnostic, regardless of the meaning of atheism. Atheism is generally perceived as a way of thinking that I do not adhere to.

That change of opinion took 8 months though, that's plenty of time to step back and reflect. There must have been a certain point in that debate that stood out of which you initially tried to resist. Some solid fact that changed your way of thinking or a host of people supporting said catalyst against the minority (you). The fact is that in the end you decided on this change, It was not forced.

When it comes to religion there are no solid facts to use, at least not something they would perceive as fact. Thing is, religion is changing massively these days due to outside influences rather than aggressive attacks. Hell, theres even a growing branch of christianity that are atheists and use the teachings in a purely philisophical sense.

Edited by HellsingDS, 25 March 2012 - 02:31 pm.

[Darkademic]

I still prefer to stand by the term agnostic, regardless of the meaning of atheism. Atheism is generally perceived as a way of thinking that I do not adhere to.

That's fair enough, although I would recommend watching the second video that I just added to my previous post if you have the time.

That change of opinion took 8 months though, that's plenty of time to step back and reflect. There must have been a certain point in that debate that stood out of which you initially tried to resist. Some solid fact that changed your way of thinking or a host of people supporting said catalyst against the minority (you).

It was a long process. I basically wiped the slate clean and started from scratch (the debate itself was called "Starting from Scratch"), going back to the fundamentals of philosophy upon which all of my other ideas were ultimately based. From there it went on for 37 pages with 551 (often lengthy) replies. My point really is that extended debate can work, but it does depend on the open mindedness and patience of the parties involved.

I would say though, that the chances of succeeding in changing someone's mind is inversely proportional to how all-encompassing the ideas being discussed are. Religious ideas generally permeate a person's entire life, and so it'd no doubt be incredibly disorienting and perhaps painful to change such ideas. Nobody likes being wrong, much less being wrong about something foundational to the way one lives their life.

When it comes to religion there are no solid facts to use, at least not something they would perceive as fact.

Well it's precisely that absence of facts that leads to atheism, and the burden of proof lies with the theist, as I'm sure you're aware.

Like I mentioned a couple of posts ago, it comes down to epistemology; a branch of philosophy which, in my experience, most religious people have neglected to explore even briefly.