Where are you pro lifers on this one

[spurraider21]

I'd also add that an agnostic might believe there is a god but also that god is not based on a particular religious definition of god. So that they wouldn't be following the Koran, Bible, etc.
If there is a god, it's not one sitting above and judging people on their actions.

i dont know that agnostic would describe that

could still be a theist, but not tied to a specific religion.

or could be a deist, ie some supernatural essence did set the universe/reality into motion but doesnt have any special relationship or interaction with humans.

but a person who says "yeah, i think some supreme being started the universe, but doesnt have a special interaction with humans... though we really cant know for sure since this is an unprovable statement at this time" would be an agnostic deist, for example.

[DMC]

If you believe there is a god, you aren't atheist or agnostic. You are theist.

I also think we're misusing the term "belief" a bit. Belief doesn't mean notion in all uses of the word. In theism, belief means a conviction but with the agnostic theist it could be simply a notion. The same was being done for "theory". The same individual who might lean toward a certain notion might say "that's my theory" and yet still say "that's my belief" but in reality has neither a theory nor a belief, only a notion.

[spurraider21]

If you believe there is a god, you aren't atheist or agnostic. You are theist.

I also think we're misusing the term "belief" a bit. Belief doesn't mean notion in all uses of the word. In theism, belief means a conviction but with the agnostic theist it could be simply a notion. The same was being done for "theory". The same individual who might lean toward a certain notion might say "that's my theory" and yet still say "that's my belief" but in reality has neither a theory nor a belief, only a notion.

theory in the colloquial sense is very different from theory in the scientific sense. but putting that aside, i think belief is still separate from knowledge. agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, not belief.

ultimately as long as people's positions on the subject are clear, the labeling becomes less relevant. they can be useful short-hands if people use them the same way, though. so i'd call myself an agnostic-atheist... but what i mean by that is that i dont believe that a god exists, but i also think that god is generally an unfalsifiable claim that we dont currently have any way to prove or disprove, so it cant really be "known". if you understand my position but disagree with the definitional label, then thats not too important a conversation imo

[DMC]

theory in the colloquial sense is very different from theory in the scientific sense. but putting that aside, i think belief is still separate from knowledge. agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, not belief.

ultimately as long as people's positions on the subject are clear, the labeling becomes less relevant. they can be useful short-hands if people use them the same way, though. so i'd call myself an agnostic-atheist... but what i mean by that is that i dont believe that a god exists, but i also think that god is generally an unfalsifiable claim that we dont currently have any way to prove or disprove, so it cant really be "known". if you understand my position but disagree with the definitional label, then thats not too important a conversation imo

I don't believe a god exists but I also think it's not a choice to believe or not believe. I think belief is compelled by experience and evidence (interchangeable at the personal level). I cannot compel myself to believe something just because of the cost vs reward approach. If a god made itself apparent to me, I'd have no choice but to believe, and that would be knowledge. I don't separate belief from knowledge since the criteria for each is basically the same - you've seen enough to compel you. In courts, the jury acts on compelling evidence but they do not act on knowledge since they weren't there when it happened. All the atheist needs to become theist is compelling evidence.

[spurraider21]

I don't believe a god exists but I also think it's not a choice to believe or not believe. I think belief is compelled by experience and evidence (interchangeable at the personal level). I cannot compel myself to believe something just because of the cost vs reward approach. If a god made itself apparent to me, I'd have no choice but to believe, and that would be knowledge. I don't separate belief from knowledge since the criteria for each is basically the same - you've seen enough to compel you. In courts, the jury acts on compelling evidence but they do not act on knowledge since they weren't there when it happened. All the atheist needs to become theist is compelling evidence.

i agree with all of this. i dont think belief is really a choice. now, one might make the choice to expose themselves to more information which challenge their existing worldview, but whether that additional information actually changes their mind is not a simply a matter of choice

i mean personally, whether one is a theist or atheist, i still think agnosticism is the only rational knowledge claim... an acknowledgment that god, or more generally, the supernatural, is not something that we can prove or disprove, or truly know exists or not.

so you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist... either way you are making a belief claim but not a knowledge claim. Plato for instance described knowledge as a "justified true belief." or put another way, i might believe that advanced alien lifeforms exist, that belief might be based on the limited evidence we have, but i cant claim to know they exist.

dictionary definitions may vary... but the way i had usually heard atheism/theism or agnosticism defined, and the way i use them, reflects the above. but if people have different definitions thats fine. like i said, as long as everyone's actual position is clear and known, the label matters less and less

[Neo.]

if I say that you are pedophile, it is up to me to prove it, not you to prove that you are innocent.

So you believe one guy who talked to a burning bush? If today one guy said the same, you would say that he is drunk or crazy and you know that this is true. So, today with billion of people and the possibility to record photos and videos, not one was able to prove the existence of god, weird, isn't it?

i would agree that it sounds completely absurd and would be laughed off, except for the fact that an entire race of people eyewitnessed the exact seemingly unexplainable events moses recorded (such as the 10 plagues, parting of red sea, guidance through the wilderness, winning battles they had no business winning, etc...) and passed down the stories from generation to generation

back then they didnt have phones and recorders, so they passed on what they witnessed by telling families and writing about it

Yes, your writers made up things out of thin air like other cults who pretend that their guru did amazing things, nothing unusual here. Religions are cults created to control people

well here is your "pedophile" claim. you claim that the bible was made up out of thin air and simply made as a system of control. prove it.

You don't understand how the universe was created so it has to be a god and yours, not of the other thousands gods, right?

you dont understand how the universe was created so it has to have just appeared out of absolutely nothing with no explanation behind it because of our limited understanding, cant possibly be a god that we also have a limited understanding of, right?

[Frenchfred]

it is usually a choice for atheists who for the vast majority have been raised in a religious environment. So they choose not to believe that crap anymore.

The vast majority of christians don't follow the bible anyway, I've rarely seen a more hypocritical group. They use it only to judge others and tell them that they are in the wrong but never apply it to themselves. You just have to look at the 7 deadly sins to see that those people don't believe in it otherwise they'd live their lives differently.

[Neo.]

What proves that Zeus was made up? Or do you believe in him too?

what proof is there of his existence?

at least for yahweh, elohim, Jehovah or whatever name people prefer to use for him, theres a group of 66 books by around 40 different writers across 1600 years of various testimony to his existence, as well as other writings and archeological findings in existence backing up various events described in the bible

to my knowledge, everything about zeus (and other greek mythological gods, hindu gods, etc...) was simply fables made to explain the unexplainable without any eyewitness accounts or testimony to their actual existence

regardless, i dont doubt that other "gods" exist so to speak, even jesus is referred to as a god (a term that can simply be used to describe a mighty, powerful being). i personally believe in one true god almighty, to which the bible testimony shows that he frequently humiliated the "gods" of other nations, such as through the 10 plagues, or the challenge for baal to start a fire on a stack of firewood

[Neo.]

it is usually a choice for atheists who for the vast majority have been raised in a religious environment. So they choose not to believe that crap anymore.

The vast majority of christians don't follow the bible anyway, I've rarely seen a more hypocritical group. They use it only to judge others and tell them that they are in the wrong but never apply it to themselves. You just have to look at the 7 deadly sins to see that those people don't believe in it otherwise they'd live their lives differently.

now i pretty much agree with this post. i fully understand why many people raised in religious environments turn atheist, because of the absolute hypocrisy of most christians. i dont disagree with you that the bible and religion is used to control people, and i think its absolutely wrong to do that. but i dont agree that the bible was made to be used as a system of control. some sick individuals have simply used it for such purposes (or for personal gain and greed, or a way to influence governments/politics), and there are few people in the world i have a greater disdain for than them.

[RandomGuy]

so show me the factual absolute evidence that the universe was started through an element smaller than an atom exploding into the entire universe, and that it happened entirely on its own, that there was absolutely no other force, being or reasoning behind it.

1) Science does not prove anything "absolutely".

2) you cannot "prove a negative".

"Prove it wasn't God" is simply a way of shifting the burden of proof.

If you claim "god did it", that is YOUR burden of proof to meet. You don't get to get out of that burden by asking me to prove it wasn't God.

It just doesn't work that way.

[Frenchfred]

i would agree that it sounds completely absurd and would be laughed off, except for the fact that an entire race of people eyewitnessed the exact seemingly unexplainable events moses recorded (such as the 10 plagues, parting of red sea, guidance through the wilderness, winning battles they had no business winning, etc...) and passed down the stories from generation to generation

back then they didnt have phones and recorders, so they passed on what they witnessed by telling families and writing about it



well here is your "pedophile" claim. you claim that the bible was made up out of thin air and simply made as a system of control. prove it.



you dont understand how the universe was created so it has to have just appeared out of absolutely nothing with no explanation behind it because of our limited understanding, cant possibly be a god that we also have a limited understanding of, right?

and it is well known that information passed this way cannot be deformed over time or that they are completely true just like bigfoot, the lochness monster, yeti...stories. So, if you believe that these stories are true, why don't you believe in Zeus, Odin, Jupiter...? They are exactly the same with the same "proofs". You don't believe that 5000 gods are true, I'm the same but with an extra god.

I claim that god doesn't exist, that it was an invention. Nobody has proven the existence of god and as I said there is not one person among the billions that we are who has anything on a camera, nothing, not one proof. What we have for sure are the millions of people killed because of religions.

The earth was flat until it wasn't. Our knowledge changes all the time, I believe in science and will never trust people who believe in a guy with a beard living in the sky.

[RandomGuy]

so show me the factual absolute evidence that the universe was started through an element smaller than an atom exploding into the entire universe, and that it happened entirely on its own, that there was absolutely no other force, being or reasoning behind it.



then show me the proof. not theories, not guesses, not cir stantial evidence, not reasoning that supports a theory. i want absolute undeniable facts that your "theory" was how the universe came about, since that's apparently what you want to see in order to believe in a higher being.

I don't really have a "theory" as to how the universe came about. People that study astronomy have presented several working theories that explain the evidence we have, the Big Bang being one of those.

If you want proof for that, study astronomy. I am an accountant.

I don't know, and I am fine with not knowing. I just am not going to make up some story about magic beings creating everything to fill in the blanks.

The way I figure it, if some fantastical being gave a what I think they can damn well show up and speak for themselves. Such a being would not need to rely on flawed arguments.

[spurraider21]

what proof is there of his existence?

at least for yahweh, elohim, Jehovah or whatever name people prefer to use for him, theres a group of 66 books by around 40 different writers across 1600 years of various testimony to his existence, as well as other writings and archeological findings in existence backing up various events described in the bible

to my knowledge, everything about zeus (and other greek mythological gods, hindu gods, etc...) was simply fables made to explain the unexplainable without any eyewitness accounts or testimony to their actual existence

regardless, i dont doubt that other "gods" exist so to speak, even jesus is referred to as a god (a term that can simply be used to describe a mighty, powerful being). i personally believe in one true god almighty, to which the bible testimony shows that he frequently humiliated the "gods" of other nations, such as through the 10 plagues, or the challenge for baal to start a fire on a stack of firewood

would you believe that the the Cyclops and the Sirens were real because the Iliad and Odyssey mentioned some historical truths like the trojan war?

or generally, if a text gets some things right (which are verified through evidence) does that mean everything else in that text should be assumed to be true by default? arguably you could use it as a demonstration of the general reliability of that text, but that doesnt inherently make its other claims true

[Neo.]

1) Science does not prove anything "absolutely"

then perhaps people should stop presenting theories such as big bang and evolution as a fact, instead of a theory

2) you cannot "prove a negative".

"Prove it wasn't God" is simply a way of shifting the burden of proof.

If you claim "god did it", that is YOUR burden of proof to meet. You don't get to get out of that burden by asking me to prove it wasn't God.

It just doesn't work that way.

on the flip side, one could say the whole "burden of proof" is an easy way to not address the fact that it cant be proven a god doesnt exist. however as mentioned, there are plenty of historical do ents archeological findings that have been preserved for thousands of years that provide the best proof they could possibly provide. if we are just going to dismiss the bible because "oh we dont have any current eyewitness accounts that prove the existence of god", then you could do the exact same for much of human history that has been recorded in books and preserved in various archeological findings but there are no current eyewitness accounts of ever happening

[spurraider21]

it is usually a choice for atheists who for the vast majority have been raised in a religious environment. So they choose not to believe that crap anymore.

The vast majority of christians don't follow the bible anyway, I've rarely seen a more hypocritical group. They use it only to judge others and tell them that they are in the wrong but never apply it to themselves. You just have to look at the 7 deadly sins to see that those people don't believe in it otherwise they'd live their lives differently.

well, i think they might choose to entertain other ideas, but what you truly believe cant be something that you can change like an on/off switch. belief is the conclusion your mind reaches, at least thats the way i see it.

could you choose to believe in a flat earth tomorrow? like actually believe in it, not just claiming you do?

[Frenchfred]

what proof is there of his existence?

at least for yahweh, elohim, Jehovah or whatever name people prefer to use for him, theres a group of 66 books by around 40 different writers across 1600 years of various testimony to his existence, as well as other writings and archeological findings in existence backing up various events described in the bible

to my knowledge, everything about zeus (and other greek mythological gods, hindu gods, etc...) was simply fables made to explain the unexplainable without any eyewitness accounts or testimony to their actual existence

regardless, i dont doubt that other "gods" exist so to speak, even jesus is referred to as a god (a term that can simply be used to describe a mighty, powerful being). i personally believe in one true god almighty, to which the bible testimony shows that he frequently humiliated the "gods" of other nations, such as through the 10 plagues, or the challenge for baal to start a fire on a stack of firewood

Same for your religion.

Seeing how you easily brush aside the other religions but believe the crap of yours is interesting. This is EXACTLY the same. Just because you believe the stories in those books are real doesn't prove anything. Again, how convenient it is that when we have recording capabilities, there is no proof of god existence.

[Neo.]

I don't really have a "theory" as to how the universe came about. People that study astronomy have presented several working theories that explain the evidence we have, the Big Bang being one of those.

If you want proof for that, study astronomy. I am an accountant.

I don't know, and I am fine with not knowing. I just am not going to make up some story about magic beings creating everything to fill in the blanks.

The way I figure it, if some fantastical being gave a what I think they can damn well show up and speak for themselves. Such a being would not need to rely on flawed arguments.

cool man. i didnt make anything up though. i simply read writings thats been preserved for thousands of years, that i have thoroughly researched and have found plenty of reason for myself to believe is true. but to each their own. im not trying to force anyone to believe what i do.

[RandomGuy]

2: you do not have any way of assessing the probability of the universe ending up the way it did, because you do not have any other universes to actually compare it to.

and you do?

I could just as easily say: the odds of the universe ending up the way it did is 1.0, with just as much justification.

prove it

As far as reasons go, this is an especially ty/flawed one that is easily picked apart.

literally the same can be said for your argument for the exact same reasons. funny how that works.

So... that all sailed right over your head.

Let me re-state, and hopefully that will make things clearer:

I have no idea what the actual odds are of the universe ending up the way it did.

and neither do you.

imho yes, it makes more sense that a universe that works harmoniously and a planet with perfect balance and physics to allow trillions of life forms to all coexist, was intelligently created than happened by a googolplex's chance to come together harmoniously from a random nonsensical chaotic explosion.

You pulled a probability out of your ass. I pulled a different one out of mine.

My point was that they both stink.

You CAN'T know the odds. You can't even do an educated guess.

Since you can't know the odds, saying something is "more reasonable" based on those odds, is... not reasonable.

[RandomGuy]

cool man. i didnt make anything up though. i simply read writings thats been preserved for thousands of years, that i have thoroughly researched and have found plenty of reason for myself to believe is true. but to each their own. im not trying to force anyone to believe what i do.

Except those writings haven't been preserved.



If you are talking about the bible... wow.

Feel free to show an original manuscript.

[SpursforSix]

i dont know that agnostic would describe that

could still be a theist, but not tied to a specific religion.

or could be a deist, ie some supernatural essence did set the universe/reality into motion but doesnt have any special relationship or interaction with humans.

but a person who says "yeah, i think some supreme being started the universe, but doesnt have a special interaction with humans... though we really cant know for sure since this is an unprovable statement at this time" would be an agnostic deist, for example.

I'm not sure I would call them a theist or deist because they really wouldn't believe there is a god. Just leaning to "might be" and if there is, it (god) doesn't give a what people do.

But I suppose there's a lot of crossover.

[spurraider21]

I'm not sure I would call them a theist or deist because they really wouldn't believe there is a god. Just leaning to "might be" and if there is, it (god) doesn't give a what people do.

But I suppose there's a lot of crossover.

i wouldnt stress too much about the labels tbh. they're helpful to quickly identify what somebody's view is, but if 2 people are willing to have a conversation about them, you can just lay out your belief system instead of using a 1-2 word shorthand

[RandomGuy]

i didnt make anything up though. i simply read writings thats been preserved for thousands of years,.

How do you know those people writing things down didn't make them up?

Maybe you want to prove Moses existed? (hint: he didn't)

[Frenchfred]

then perhaps people should stop presenting theories such as big bang and evolution as a fact, instead of a theory



on the flip side, one could say the whole "burden of proof" is an easy way to not address the fact that it cant be proven a god doesnt exist. however as mentioned, there are plenty of historical do ents archeological findings that have been preserved for thousands of years that provide the best proof they could possibly provide. if we are just going to dismiss the bible because "oh we dont have any current eyewitness accounts that prove the existence of god", then you could do the exact same for much of human history that has been recorded in books and preserved in various archeological findings but there are no current eyewitness accounts of ever happening

it is called big bang THEORY.

This is how religious people reply when they cannot prove the existence of their god, they say probe he doesn't exist because they know they cannot prove anything

[Neo.]

Same for your religion.

Seeing how you easily brush aside the other religions but believe the crap of yours is interesting. This is EXACTLY the same. Just because you believe the stories in those books are real doesn't prove anything. Again, how convenient it is that when we have recording capabilities, there is no proof of god existence.

theres a big difference between telling stories to try to explain something you dont understand, and retelling events that happened during your lifetime as guys like moses did

lol recording capabilities have existed for what, 100 years or so? the bible records events that spans thousands years and doesnt have record of god making some sort of annual appearance or anything. there were periods where he didnt interact with humans for hundreds of years. why would we expect him to suddenly appear just to make you happy?

[Neo.]

it is called big bang THEORY.

i called it the theory too.

but many people present it as fact.

This is how religious people reply when they cannot prove the existence of their god, they say probe he doesn't exist because they know they cannot prove anything

lol and the same is done by atheists, they want religion to probe that he exists because they know they cant prove that its outside the realm of possibility that he exists, which has been my point all along, both sides do the same thing just on the other end of the spectrum