Darius Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 There is no evidence for any other versions of a god, either. So the probability is nil and the possibility is irrelevant Well, except for this little thing we have called the universe It got here somehow, and my understanding is we don't know exactly what happened before the big bang. So until/unless that question is answered, the possibility of a 'supreme being' is definitely there. I'm not saying that is cause to worship any specific deity or that the existence of such even matters, just that there's no way we can know at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 4, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 4, 2014 So until/unless that question is answered, the possibility of a 'supreme being' is definitely there. I believe I did acknowledge the possibility. What I added was that there is no evidence so the probability is low, and we live our lives based on probabilities, not possibilities (which technically are endless) that have no evidence. Not knowing an answer and just making up unfounded stuff to cover the gap isn't helpful in my estimation, that's all. To say that we don't currently know how the universe came to be so it must be due to a god makes no sense to me; it's as if we lost our keys and assume aliens have taken them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 4, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 4, 2014 There is no evidence for any other versions of a god, either. So the probability is nil and the possibility is irrelevant Well, except for this little thing we have called the universe It got here somehow, and my understanding is we don't know exactly what happened before the big bang. So until/unless that question is answered, the possibility of a 'supreme being' is definitely there. I'm not saying that is cause to worship any specific deity or that the existence of such even matters, just that there's no way we can know at this time. But we don't actually know that the universe exists. We simply perceive it through senses that could be inaccurate. Even the science that "proves" the existence of the universe is perceptual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I still don't think its the same question though. We know that we exist, in some way. What I wonder is whether or not the way in which we think we exist is true or not. Its just an interesting idea to explore. What do you expect to get from the questioning? Perhaps to arrive at a truth we have not seen before. I think it would be more accurate to say, "We know that our consciousness exists." Everything else is just what our consciousness perceives and those perceptions may be inaccurate, but we trust them because we have no other alternative. Yeah, that may be technically correct, but in everyday experience we don't differentiate, "me" from "my consciousness" or "I" from "consciousness" we just ARE. We have no alternative but to trust our perceptions, but its always helpful to keep in mind that they may not really be accurate, and the center to which we keep referring them may not even be real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 There is no evidence for any other versions of a god, either. So the probability is nil and the possibility is irrelevant Well, except for this little thing we have called the universe It got here somehow, and my understanding is we don't know exactly what happened before the big bang. So until/unless that question is answered, the possibility of a 'supreme being' is definitely there. I'm not saying that is cause to worship any specific deity or that the existence of such even matters, just that there's no way we can know at this time. But we don't actually know that the universe exists. We simply perceive it through senses that could be inaccurate. Even the science that "proves" the existence of the universe is perceptual. But if it doesn't exist... say, if it's just a simulation or whatever, doesn't that suggest that there is a higher intelligence at work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 4, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 4, 2014 We know what works and what is apparent to the only senses we have. We call that reality. It's what we have to work with on a daily basis, and we seem to have a pretty good and ever expanding understanding of that reality. To propose that everything is illusion, or that we can't perceive anything correctly, or our universe may be one atom on the fingernail of god, or aliens planted life on our planet, etc. seems pointless other than as a game of imagination much as children build cardboard forts and princess castles make of bed linens. Maybe I just don't have a good enough imagination for philosophy or religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 4, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 4, 2014 There is no evidence for any other versions of a god, either. So the probability is nil and the possibility is irrelevant Well, except for this little thing we have called the universe It got here somehow, and my understanding is we don't know exactly what happened before the big bang. So until/unless that question is answered, the possibility of a 'supreme being' is definitely there. I'm not saying that is cause to worship any specific deity or that the existence of such even matters, just that there's no way we can know at this time. But we don't actually know that the universe exists. We simply perceive it through senses that could be inaccurate. Even the science that "proves" the existence of the universe is perceptual. But if it doesn't exist... say, if it's just a simulation or whatever, doesn't that suggest that there is a higher intelligence at work? Not necessarily. Just because the physicists haven't yet provided an adequate answer is no reason to jump to the conclusion that "god did it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 Not necessarily. Just because the physicists haven't yet provided an adequate answer is no reason to jump to the conclusion that "god did it". I don't jump to any conclusion. I just say 'I don't know'. Hence, agnostic. If we knew for certain how it all went down and we knew it wasn't a god/supreme being, then I would be atheist. But we don't, so I'm not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Not necessarily. Just because the physicists haven't yet provided an adequate answer is no reason to jump to the conclusion that "god did it". I don't jump to any conclusion. I just say 'I don't know'. Hence, agnostic. If we knew for certain how it all went down and we knew it wasn't a god/supreme being, then I would be atheist. But we don't, so I'm not I don't think any atheist is 100% certain. I consider myself a hard atheist but I am only sure beyond a reasonable doubt. It's difficult because these words have a lot of baggage for churches like to spread misinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I still don't think its the same question though. We know that we exist, in some way. What I wonder is whether or not the way in which we think we exist is true or not. Its just an interesting idea to explore. What do you expect to get from the questioning? Perhaps to arrive at a truth we have not seen before. I think it would be more accurate to say, "We know that our consciousness exists." Everything else is just what our consciousness perceives and those perceptions may be inaccurate, but we trust them because we have no other alternative. If our perceptions are repeatable and predictable, I personally see it as inconsequential that they may be somehow objectively inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 There is no evidence for any other versions of a god, either. So the probability is nil and the possibility is irrelevant Well, except for this little thing we have called the universe It got here somehow, and my understanding is we don't know exactly what happened before the big bang. So until/unless that question is answered, the possibility of a 'supreme being' is definitely there. I'm not saying that is cause to worship any specific deity or that the existence of such even matters, just that there's no way we can know at this time. I talked to my childhood friend on the phone this weekend and he insisted on pushing this issue with me. In his mind there is no logical inconsistency in insisting that something can not come from nothing, therefore god -- even though god fails his own test and necessarily comes from nothing in his scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Agnostic was a recently coined term. It relates to knowledge. Most folk do not bother to delve into all the nuances of religions so agnostic is an honest answer. A-theist is more a positive claim relating to belief in that there is no belief in any gods. The agnostic label tends not to carry the baggage atheist does. If a theist asks you your religious beliefs, if you say atheist, they go immediately on the defensive as if you actually said, "you are a dumb fuck for believing in god". Say agnostic, they may or may not try and convince you of the existence of gawd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 "But we don't actually know that the universe exists. We simply perceive it through senses that could be inaccurate. Even the science that "proves" the existence of the universe is perceptual." See how Xtianity has a huge advantage over us. They know things. We just perceive them and draw preposterous conclusions from them.bill 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Really? Hate speech? You are ignoring the culture that existed prior to Dawkin's actions. It's just weird how you combine 9-11 to changes in religious views. 9-11 had nothing to do with my changing religious views. Perhaps it affected a few people but is there data that this was a trend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 9, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 9, 2014 The evolution of the word "atheist," just like the war in Iraq, was primarily fueled by a strong desire to point fingers somewhere. Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just hate speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 There is no evidence for any other versions of a god, either. So the probability is nil and the possibility is irrelevant Well, except for this little thing we have called the universe It got here somehow, and my understanding is we don't know exactly what happened before the big bang. So until/unless that question is answered, the possibility of a 'supreme being' is definitely there. I'm not saying that is cause to worship any specific deity or that the existence of such even matters, just that there's no way we can know at this time. As Sean Carroll said in his recent debate with William Lane Craig, looking at a cosmological model of the universe and asking, "What caused it?," is the same thing as looking at an iPhone's camera app and asking, "But where do you load the film?" It's an irrelevant question. Astronomers are moving away from the Lemaitre's ancient version of the "Big Bang" theory and constructing more rigorous, evidence-based models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Agnostic was a recently coined term. It relates to knowledge. Most folk do not bother to delve into all the nuances of religions so agnostic is an honest answer. A-theist is more a positive claim relating to belief in that there is no belief in any gods. The agnostic label tends not to carry the baggage atheist does. If a theist asks you your religious beliefs, if you say atheist, they go immediately on the defensive as if you actually said, "you are a dumb fuck for believing in god". Say agnostic, they may or may not try and convince you of the existence of gawd. That's why Huxley invented "agnostic" in the first place, I think. "Atheist" carried so much baggage, thanks to the supernaturalists, that it was better to just chuck the word entirely and come up with something new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Agnostic was a recently coined term. It relates to knowledge. Most folk do not bother to delve into all the nuances of religions so agnostic is an honest answer. A-theist is more a positive claim relating to belief in that there is no belief in any gods. The agnostic label tends not to carry the baggage atheist does. If a theist asks you your religious beliefs, if you say atheist, they go immediately on the defensive as if you actually said, "you are a dumb fuck for believing in god". Say agnostic, they may or may not try and convince you of the existence of gawd. That's why Huxley invented "agnostic" in the first place, I think. "Atheist" carried so much baggage, thanks to the supernaturalists, that it was better to just chuck the word entirely and come up with something new. The problem is that there is no polite way to tell somebody that they have wasted their life enslaving themselves to false religion. Merely thinking it is insulting to people. We are left with either negative labels: atheist, agnostic, godless, non-believer, not superstitious, not religious Or positive labels that are insulting to the religious: rational, humanist, free-thinker, open minded Either way religious people are offended at best. How dare we not need their core values? How dare we imply that their religion is like all the other religions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriendlyChristian Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I've been doing some online reading tonight, trying to understand the differences between an agnostic and atheist, and I've seen thoughts expressed like below: Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Since agnostics don't believe in a god, they are also atheists. Many of them simply don't like the negative connotations of atheism. Simply put, everyone is either an atheist or a theist. You either believe in God or you don't. Either a light switch is on, or it isn't. Binary system, you can't be anywhere in between. As I see it though, this is not necessarily a binary equation. For example, if you have a cat, and I don't know for sure what color it is, I can either believe that the cat is black (theist) or not believe it (atheist). However, the fact is that there has not been enough information provided to me to draw an opinion one way or the other, so I have to admit that I simply don't know. Of course, I could do research into what is the most common color of cats, and make a guess based on that information. However, this certainly wouldn't qualify as a belief. It's like asking, 'I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 5. Do you believe it is 3?' How the hell should I know? On the other hand, if you told me the specific breed of the cat, and then I found out that 95% of cats in that breed were black, then I could say that indeed, yes... I believe your cat is probably black. As for the labels themselves, some would say they are not needed, since we don't have labels to describe the belief/lack of belief in a flying spaghetti monster. However, the undeniable fact is that the universe got here SOMEHOW, so to me this is more a question of how somebody thinks that happened, vs 'do you believe in a specific god'. To the OP. You are hitting on a very fundamental idea of a seemingly hard wired flaw in human thinking. We know, from multiple studies, that the proper method of finding truth is to try and falsify various claims. . . that the true claim will (usually) emerge as unfalsibiable when we do this. Of course "unfalsifiability" doesn't guarantee that we are right. "Unfalsifiability" only assures us that something is unfalsibiable. . . . no matter how ridiculous a claim may be. We need to, then, try and decide which unfalsibiable idea is the least ridiculous. Do you think Jesus rising from the dead is the most, last ridiculous, idea available to explain Christianity? Or do you think it to be more ridiculous than any competing idea? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 To the OP. You are hitting on a very fundamental idea of a seemingly hard wired flaw in human thinking. We know, from multiple studies, that the proper method of finding truth is to try and falsify various claims. . . that the true claim will (usually) emerge as unfalsibiable when we do this. Of course "unfalsifiability" doesn't guarantee that we are right. "Unfalsifiability" only assures us that something is unfalsibiable. . . . no matter how ridiculous a claim may be. We need to, then, try and decide which unfalsibiable idea is the least ridiculous. Do you think Jesus rising from the dead is the most, last ridiculous, idea available to explain Christianity? Or do you think it to be more ridiculous than any competing idea? Why? The most ridiculous idea in Christianity is that "Christianity is nonfiction". All other ridiculous ideas merely feed this one. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 20, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 20, 2014 To the OP. You are hitting on a very fundamental idea of a seemingly hard wired flaw in human thinking. We know, from multiple studies, that the proper method of finding truth is to try and falsify various claims. . . that the true claim will (usually) emerge as unfalsibiable when we do this. Of course "unfalsifiability" doesn't guarantee that we are right. "Unfalsifiability" only assures us that something is unfalsibiable. . . . no matter how ridiculous a claim may be. We need to, then, try and decide which unfalsibiable idea is the least ridiculous. Do you think Jesus rising from the dead is the most, last ridiculous, idea available to explain Christianity? Or do you think it to be more ridiculous than any competing idea? Why? Mods, the phrases in bold print sound a lot like stevebennett. I know this still isn't solid evidence, and I will continue trying to get something more solid for you. However, the evidence so far is certainly compelling. Please keep a close eye on this guy. Thanks, TRP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 The way this one talks--- he certainly does seem Steve like. Not sure what his obsession with this site is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 "We need to, then, try and decide which unfalsibiable idea is the least ridiculous. Do you think Jesus rising from the dead is the most, last ridiculous, idea available to explain Christianity? Or do you think it to be more ridiculous than any competing idea? Why?" FriendlyChristian Ever had a course in logic? If not, take one. If so, take it again. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Agnosticism as I understand, is really that the existence of a god is unknowable. That no one has knowledge one way or the other, if a god exists or not. Which is true. No one 'knows' with certainty. An atheist disbelieves that a god exists, barring any reliable proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Jeff Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I don't think anyone knows if there is anything after death or not. But in terms of the existence of god, I am a hard atheist. I absolutely do not believe in the existence of god. Is that a contradiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts