[samwoo2go]

Originally Posted by Nedim

My and my GF were having a conversation last night. She's very religous, Im not...at all. I asked her what proof do you have that god exists, since I'm not a believer. She told me that the church showed her some pictures last week and they said that the furthest image taken in space was some black hole with a cross in it... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...black_hole.jpg
I laughed

Tell her to spend 5 mins on 4chan then ask her where's your god now.

[esscolab]

I think the biggest issue I have is the blind faith believer, the ones who have no evidence to base their beliefs on but swear it's all true.

May years ago I had a conversation with a Muslim priest who said evolution is manmade and fossils of dinosaurs were planted in the earth. At this point I said we may as well end this conversation as this is ludicrous. The trouble here is that it's this sort of brainwashed individual that is spreading the word to others.

Another guy I knew (a devout Jew) and a person I had high respect for was cursing the story about the Hadron Collider one morning when I was in the office. When I pushed him for more information he told me that messing around with nature in this way is disrespectful to his beliefs, he went on explaining that God created the world, not the big bang. He went on to say that black matter was a made up theory that attacked the Jewish religion and everything it stood for.

Now none of us know for sure how we came to be exactly, but I'd rather go poking around in the soil looking for physical evidence to prove/disprove my beliefs than reading an old book and being brainwashed with stories that have no tangible evidence to back them up.


As for Christianity, this one has caused more blood shed and wars than any other, even to this very day. Bizarre how the world leaders who instigate these wars also proclaim to be devoutly religious.

[Nedim]

religion = war = eventually ending the mankind

[DougLikesBMW]

Originally Posted by radix

I do not lack belief, as belief is not relevant to the question of the existence of god. I do not have belief in a god, as believe is irrelevant once again. I believe there could be a god. I also believe there could not be a god. In other words, I believe, and I lack belief, in the possibility of a god simultaneously. It could be there is a god, and it could be that there isn't. I simply don't know the answer, and I believe it to be unknowable, so I don't consider the question.

An agnostic atheist would say "I don't believe in a god, but I can't be sure". I say "I simply don't know.". There is a difference.

Well, I decided to ask some people who know more about this than I do.

I can't say it any better than this guy, so I'll just link you to the post.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...53&postcount=2

[radix]

Originally Posted by DougLikesBMW

Well, I decided to ask some people who know more about this than I do.

I can't say it any better than this guy, so I'll just link you to the post.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...53&postcount=2

To quote his post:

Agnosticism; it is impossible to know if god exist or not

This is what I believe, but he's categorizing me incorrectly. As I said before, believe has no bearing on the truth value of whether or not a deity does or doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god, therefore I don't consider the question reasonable. I believe there is the possibility of the existence of a god. I also believe there is a possibility one doesn't exist.

In other words, I don't know, and I make no pretense of trying to know, as the answer cannot be known through logic. Of course this is just a rehash of what I said here:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...5&postcount=36

For the record, I would be considered a weak agnostic. Here are the different types of agnostics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Note that agnostic atheism is listed, but doesn't match my beliefs. I am not an agnostic atheist, but rather a weak agnostic. However, sometimes I am more of a strong agnostic. My position varies somewhat on the subject from time to time.

[radix]

I didn't have a lot of time earlier to explain my thoughts, but the reason I waffle between strong and weak agnosticism deals with a sort of paradox of agnosticism.

As I mentioned before, belief is irrelevant when confronted with the question of the existence of anything. Either something exists or it does not. There are things that do exist, but we do not have proof of their existence. If this were not the case, then there would be no discovery of new things.

That said, it cannot be proven that there is, or is not, a deity known as god. One simply cannot know. Clearly this makes me a strong agnostic, right? It would if it weren't for the fact that if we accept that things can exist such that we don't have proof of their existence, then there can also exist methods of proving such things exist, without being aware of, or being able to prove the existence of said method of proof. You might have to spend some time pondering this to really understand what I'm saying. It took me a while to come to this conclusion, years in fact.

Ergo, it may be possible to prove the existence of a god at some point in the future, then again it might not. Again, that question cannot be answered by logic for the same reason the question of the existence of a deity cannot. In the end the answer to both questions cannot be attained through reason.

For that reason, I am more weak agnostic than strong. More on the subject here:

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagn...trong_weak.htm

Strong and weak agnosticism can be viewed as similar to strong and weak atheism, with the difference that agnostics suspend judgement on the question, or refuse to answer it, whereas atheists do not.

This will be the last post I make on this subject, as I feel I've



enough, but I'll say that I know very well what I am and what I am not. I don't need to anybody to tell me what I am. Conflating my position with atheism is incorrect. Here is how Huxley described his reasons for coining the term agnosticism:

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

To summarize, some people think that there are only two possibilities:

1. To lack belief in a god, or, I believe there is no god. (Atheism)
2. To believe in a god, or, there is a god. (Theism)

I fall into a third category.

3. Belief is irrelevant. Existence is a binary proposition ( 1 or 0 ). Since I cannot know the answer, I therefore do not ponder the question of belief. I deliberately suspend judgement.

Since atheism and theism ponder only the question of belief or lack thereof, I fall into neither category.

[graider]

someone still have to create the universe or whatever super alien that might created us. so in a sense, there must be someone that created everything.

[OC Guy]

Originally Posted by number335

i think it would be a different scenario if we were to find ants on another planet. our scientists would analyze the hell out of it to find out how intelligent they are and how they got there.

anyway, if advanced alien species are anything like humans, they've probably destroyed themselves by now so we don't have to worry about them destroying us.

If a species was advanced, why would they destroy themselves?

I think it's a bit ignorant to think that other intelligent life would behave exactly like us. They could be devoid of emotion. Or they could be devoid of only anger. Who knows. Just look around you. There are people who have mental issues who are schizos, lack emotion, lack logic, etc.. Aliens could be anyone of these or even totally different on how they think. What if they all looked 100% alike? Who knows.

Originally Posted by graider

someone still have to create the universe or whatever super alien that might created us. so in a sense, there must be someone that created everything.

Why? Prove it?

My main problem with religion is, the "either you're with us or you're not" philosophy. If you are a pigmy on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific and never have heard of being a Christian, are you going to hell or not heaven.

[graider]

Originally Posted by OC 335i

If a species was advanced, why would they destroy themselves?

I think it's a bit ignorant to think that other intelligent life would behave exactly like us. They could be devoid of emotion. Or they could be devoid of only anger. Who knows. Just look around you. There are people who have mental issues who are schizos, lack emotion, lack logic, etc.. Aliens could be anyone of these or even totally different on how they think. What if they all looked 100% alike? Who knows.



Why? Prove it?

My main problem with religion is, the "either you're with us or you're not" philosophy. If you are a pigmy on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific and never have heard of being a Christian, are you going to hell or not heaven.

well i'm not debating about religion. but my point is at the end of the day, I want to know what created all this. wouldn't you want to know?