Are we allowed to discuss religion yet?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The only real God is the concept of probability. If something can happen, it will happen at some point in time because probability has a one dimensional axis.
Wait, what? Exactly what "axis" are you talking about, or are you just paraphrasing the book (I've never read it so please clarify)? As far as I remember, in the stochastic classes I took in undergrad and the one I've taken in grad school, each of the texts warned about fallacies related to probability theory, most notably the gambler's fallacy, which contradicts what you just said. You can read about that one all over the web, actually. Nothing is due to happen unless it is determined by a finite memory random number generator (noise generators, simulations, pokemon), in which yes, it will eventually happen under normal restrictions.

Anyway, this thread took a wrong turn but hopefully we can get it back on track without jumping down each others' throats. My mom has been Christian long before I was born but my dad is atheistic / agnostic. Every school I went to until college was a private Christian school, and I am Christian myself. I curse a lot (my main vice along with nail biting), listen to "secular" music, and watch "secular" movies and shows, but I do pray and go to Church every sunday. I don't force my religious views upon anyone, but I do answer questions that my non-religious friends ask me. I also "believe in science," including evolution. This makes me an old-earth creationist, as opposed to new-earth which diametrically opposes science.
 
I'm an atheist. Nobody has ever proven the existence of God, and believing in God requires making many, many more assumptions than not believing in Him. By Occam's Razor, the existence of God is extremely unlikely. In addition, all "logical proofs of God" fail to prove anything (Martin Gardner does a good job explaining why in his essay "Proofs of God"). They all require some leap of faith, some assumption that goes outside reason. Belief in God is necessarily based on emotion, and since it cannot be rationally justified I do not believe.
 
a·the·ism -n
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god(s).
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
3.
a religion based on definite and indefinite articles


an atheist (literally meaning "no god") is a person who agrees with the statement "no god exists". i'm sorry, but if you do not have absolute certainty, then you are not an atheist. you are agnostic.

The definition you provided says that atheism is the "belief there is no god(s)." Belief and knowledge are two different things (there are degrees of knowledge)

I think somebody already mentioned that agnosticism isn't a position on its own - you are (gnostic or agnostic) AND (athesitic or theistic)


Gnosticism is what you "know" and theism is what you "believe"
e.g you could be an agnostic theist (somebody who believes in god but doesn't claim to know there is a god)
im an agnostic atheist

Please correct me if im wrong
 
a·the·ism -n
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god(s).
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
3.
a religion based on definite and indefinite articles


an atheist (literally meaning "no god") is a person who agrees with the statement "no god exists". i'm sorry, but if you do not have absolute certainty, then you are not an atheist. you are agnostic.

and yeah phantasia what tobes said

theism and atheism regard belief, gnosticism and agnosticism regard knowledge. I don't know where you got that definition but it's wrong because atheism isn't a claim about god, it's a rejection of a claim about god (usually referred to as agnostic atheism). Claiming that no god exists (gnostic atheism) is not necessary for one to call themselves an atheist, and generally most atheists will not claim this but rather reject the claims that god does exist by stating that these claims have not met their burden of proof.

it's quite simple, really.

edit: oh jeez i just got sniped
 
this is a semantic issue obviously but i've always known atheism as the claim that there are no deities, rather than the rejection of the claim that there are.

shrug.
 
I don't believe in God. I believe that something exists, because to be honest for everything that happens to have happened, both in the short term and in the long term, by random chance, is just too astronomically unlikely to fathom.

I have no problem fathoming these odds.

One thing few people realize is that whether a probability is "small" or "big" is relative. I know of contexts where a probability of 10^-1000 is astronomically high, simply because all other possibilities are many orders of magnitude less probable.

The probability of something is correlated with the number of possible alternatives that are equally complex. The number of possible universes is exponential in the the level of complexity considered. Overall, the universe is not all that complex, since we can describe its rules relatively concisely, so its relative probability is really not all that bad.

According to Bayesian logic, which is what you need to use when dealing with probability, the best theory is the one with the best posterior probability. This depends on two things: the likelihood of our observations under that theory, and the "prior probability" of the theory, which is an estimate of how "inherently likely" it is. It is like a mix of how much you like a theory and how well it fits the evidence.

Your concern that it is "too unlikely" that the universe would happen by chance is equivalent to saying that the prior probabilities of our current theories are too small. My answer is that unless you really want certain particular theories to be true, any generic way to assign prior probability will assign ridiculously small probability to virtually everything. It does not matter how "improbable" this universe looks, because the truth of the matter is that it is right in the ballpark of reasonable expectations. You would be hard pressed to find any better. *All* possible universes are at least this improbable, that's simply the natural consequence of there being so many of them. If you think 10^-1000 is a small probability, trust me, you've seen nothing.

Like, the way that mankind evolved from monkeys and the way the Earth happens to exist in just the right area to sustain life and all that jazz, just doesn't seem like all of it could happen by random chance.

Evolution is not "random chance", though. It is like shaking a salt shaker to make salt fall. The shaking might be random, the consequence is inevitable. The same goes for evolution: the mutations are random, but the consequence - a proliferation of well-adapted entities - is inevitable. There is really no magic here.

As for the Earth, there is so much stuff in the universe that it does not seem unlikely that out of sheer coincidence, some planet would have the exact conditions for life. If there is "something else" that skewed the odds so that we would exist, I'm not sure why there isn't even more life. It is like bumping the odds of winning the lottery from one out of ten millions to one out of a million. I'm not sure what compels the hypothesis, besides a desire to explain the universe using a plot device (God, or whatever else you have in mind) that values life enough to skew the odds in its favor. Alas, such a plot device might not be exactly likely. If you boost the odds of life from 1% to 100% by positing the existence of something that has a 1% chance of existing, I'm not sure what exactly it is that we gain.

You're really just moving improbability from a place where it is obvious (a certain number of fine-tuned constants and coincidences) to a place where you don't see it (some unknown entity exists that makes sure life happens). So let me tell you this: the universe is improbable. There are no workarounds. Deal with it.

Basically, I feel as though God may or may not exist. My explanation for believing 'god' exists is the Big Bang. Lets say it happened. What caused it to happen? Where did this concentrated blob of mass come from? If we have an explanation for that, why is that happening. Its impossible to fathom, and I wouldn't be surprised if a god exists and set of this chain of events.

I have absolutely no problem fathoming these things. There are many things about the universe that violate intuition, but this is not a problem with our theories or explanations, it's truly a problem with our intuition. It is like "wondering what's outside the universe", provided the universe has a finite size. You'll spend nights up thinking about it, until you realize the question might not have an answer at all. That thought might surprise you for a while, until it doesn't. Similarly, I would say that your questions might be irrelevant, and may very well be answered by "nothing", "nowhere" and "no reason".

In a nutshell, it is possible that the world cannot make sense to you, due to limitations in your capacity to understand it. For most people, I would say that this is due to some intuitive principles being so deeply ingrained that a violation of these principles is inconceivable. The only solution is to weaken or uproot these beliefs: cease believing that causality is a general principle (it just isn't - most anything can be uncaused, and at least one thing has to be), that there exists a point to the left/right/etc. of every point, that there is anything mystical about minds, that free will makes sense, etc. A lot of these beliefs can be very strong, but for the most part they are not coherent and you can understand a lot more when you don't have them.
 
As a musing; it bugs me that people justify religion with the following arguments


- It's needed for a moral code; this is just selling humans short as a species - we can treat each other correctly without religions (in fact, I'd take this opportunity to point out atheists are massively under represented in prisons).

- The unlikeliness of human existence; improbability is not a valid argument for supernatural causes.
 
i'm sorry, but if you do not have absolute certainty, then you are not an atheist. you are agnostic.

That's not true. You can think of theism and gnosticism as different spectrums of belief. There are:

Theistic gnostics - people who believe that God exists and feel that it is provable that he exists
Theistic agnostics - people who believe that God exists but do not think his existence is provable
Atheistic gnostics - people who believe that God does not exist and think his non-existence is provable
Atheistic agnoistics - people who believe that God does not exist but do not think his non-existence is provable

You can believe that God does not exist while still believing that God is, for example, beyond empirical judgements. This does make you an atheist. An agnostic is someone who does not feel strongly in any particular way about God and merely holds that his existence is unprovable one way or another.
 
I'm an atheist. Nobody has ever proven the existence of God, and believing in God requires making many, many more assumptions than not believing in Him. By Occam's Razor, the existence of God is extremely unlikely. In addition, all "logical proofs of God" fail to prove anything (Martin Gardner does a good job explaining why in his essay "Proofs of God"). They all require some leap of faith, some assumption that goes outside reason. Belief in God is necessarily based on emotion, and since it cannot be rationally justified I do not believe.
I don't want to start a debate over this, but a great book that addresses these points is I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler. It does address that any and every worldview requires some faith, and some more than others. There's only so much that any religion can prove of their religion, and whatever they can't prove is left up to faith.
 
an atheist (literally meaning "no god") is a person who agrees with the statement "no god exists". i'm sorry, but if you do not have absolute certainty, then you are not an atheist. you are agnostic.

Nobody can have "absolute certainty" about any statement, but that does not stop anyone from making them. If I assess that a statement is 99.9999% likely to be true, stating that "I do not know for sure", while technically true, is a waste of breath.

Making a statement is akin to placing a bet that the statement is true. I could easily assess that the existence of God is extremely unlikely, and act upon that information by placing the "bet" that God does not exist. Since I boldly say "I believe that God does not exist", I am clearly an atheist. That does not mean that I cannot admit for the possibility of being wrong, it only means that I am not unsure enough to express a doubt, and/or choose to use a more aggressive rhetoric.

If I want to be pedantic, I will say "God probably does not exist", just like I will say "unicorns probably do not exist". But if these statements are correct according to the evidence I have, then "God does not exist" and "unicorns do not exist" are probably correct statements as well. Saying "probably" is annoying, so if I am sure enough, I might as well cut the crap. Depending on how comfortable I am with "cutting the crap", I will be an atheist or an agnostic. Note that it doesn't really change what I think, just my attitude.
 
I don't want to start a debate over this, but a great book that addresses these points is I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler. It does address that any and every worldview requires some faith, and some more than others. There's only so much that any religion can prove of their religion, and whatever they can't prove is left up to faith.

Yeahhhh i don't buy it.


The thing is, some things do require more faith than others. Me believing that, say, the grass is green, or that there is gravity and such requires wayyyyyyyyy less faith than the belief in an all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent deity who is both his own father and his own son and a ghost, and he impregnated a virgin with his son who is in fact himself so that he/his son could die for the sins of beings he created in the first place in his own image (and he is perfect) and... need i go on?

Things like science rely on things like concrete evidence, and sure, whether you can actually rely on your senses and stuff ultimately comes down to a small degree of faith, but that's downright negligible compared to the amount of faith required to believe in the Christian deity. Also, scientists question their findings and subject them to further testing all the time, whereas religious people just assume they're right about the universe and just fall back on circular arguments to back themselves up in terms of God's existence and nature.
 
no, it's really not - the anthropic principle might be a lazy brushoff but it's not confirmation bias. we can't observe a universe that can't support our life; the only possible universe we can see is one we can live in. it's

fair do's, I misunderstood what the anthropic principle actually is
 
Yo Phantasia I agree with you on the whole no God thing but could you please stop acting like such a cunt? This is a discussion thread not an attack somebody's beliefs thread.
Where is the Like button?
Also, scientists question their findings and subject them to further testing all the time, whereas religious people just assume they're right about the universe and just fall back on circular arguments to back themselves up in terms of God's existence and nature.
It may in fact be that some religious people do just that, but it's not that way with all of us. I can't speak for anyone but myself and those I personally know well, but I know of many religious people who test their beliefs against the Bible, and experience. For an example, there was a time in my youth when I believed in the doctrine of the Trinity (like the majority of the Christian world, and an issue of highest importance for most denominations), but when challenged by a friend to look into it, I came to the conclusion that it's just not supported by the text of the Bible. That may not be the way that some people want to develop their moral codes, but I think it's a tested and historic method.
 
I've been an atheist all my life and I can't really imagine it any other way. I suppose I should thank my parents for that, they never really forced me to go to church as a kid. When I started hearing that other people held these beliefs, I couldn't help but laugh and be skeptical because of how much it sounded like that Santa Claus fellow. I grew up thinking that even if there is a god, he's a pretty terrible person based on his actions. Creating people just to send them to eternal punishment, simply because they didn't praise his every action without proof. Then I realized how many people had these beliefs in God and I got scared. The mother of one of my friends growing up literally sat me down in private and tried convincing my 13 year old self that Harry Potter was written to convert kids to witchcraft.

It makes me wonder how many people would be religious at all if parents didn't force it upon them as children. This reminds me of a sign I saw at a pride parade, "I was born gay, you chose religion". Thankfully we live in the internet age where skeptical kids can get the information and support they need, but even 15 years ago this wasn't an option. They would be forcefed this religious information and sheltered from everything else. The number of atheists in this country is around 15% (more than the number of african-americans!) and it's growing every day.

Living in secular Massachusetts has been a blessing (heh). Almost none of my friends are religious in the slightest...and even the ones that do believe aren't the kind who take the Bible at face value. Going to an engineering school helps, being surrounded by people who want to learn how things work instead of just defaulting to "goddidit". Furthermore, I don't think I could date anyone who is religious. Call it discrimination or whatever, but I can't see myself being with someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions.

Luckily for everyone the US isn't run on Biblical principles. Without even touching the blatantly contradictory passages, there is some pretty horrifying stuff in that book. I've found that the best way to convert the religious is to make them actually read their holy book of choosing. Stoning children to death for disobeying their parents and permitting no woman to hold authority are two of my favorite passages espoused by the Bible.
 
Where is the Like button?
It may in fact be that some religious people do just that, but it's not that way with all of us. I can't speak for anyone but myself and those I personally know well, but I know of many religious people who test their beliefs against the Bible, and experience. For an example, there was a time in my youth when I believed in the doctrine of the Trinity (like the majority of the Christian world, and an issue of highest importance for most denominations), but when challenged by a friend to look into it, I came to the conclusion that it's just not supported by the text of the Bible. That may not be the way that some people want to develop their moral codes, but I think it's a tested and historic method.

The bolded text is what I take issue with. Sure, you test your beliefs against the Bible, but who is to say the Bible is actually right? It was written approximately 2000 years ago by men who were completely ignorant of modern scientific principles, and their morals are similarly dated in both the Old and the New Testament(even Jesus was somewhat messed up... sorry for the format of presenting this, but I'm kind of in a hurry; I'll provide more examples later if you wish). There are so many contradictions in the Bible that it's ridiculous. So what makes you so entirely sure that it is the word of God?

If you say faith, then that's exactly the circular logic I'm talking about. If you say "well a lot of people believe it and have believed it for centuries so it MUST be true," you are making the mistake of thinking that popular belief=truth, when in fact they are unrelated. If you say that the contradictions in the Bible aren't really contradictions for some overly convoluted reason... your logic is probably off in some way, especially because there are some instances of discrepancies between things that really are mutually exclusive, even within the same book! So please, enlighten me in a logical manner on how I'm supposed to believe that the Bible is completely infallible... I'm listening.
 
I think the term you're looking for is indifferent. Agnostic relates to not being able to prove god's existence or non-existence. Everyone should be agnostic, as long as they're sane.
lol ilu billy.

Some atheists distinguish between themselves with the concept of (a)gnostic atheism, which perplexes me. I guess I just 'don't get it', since, to me, you are an atheist, or you aren't. Brain summed up my beliefs perfectly: atheism doesn't preclude the marginal possibility of being wrong, it's just cutting the crap. So, I don't see the spectrum that FlareBlitz described as necessitated by the term atheist. God doesn't exist the same way unicorns don't exist, but I can't prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, unfortunately.

I agree everyone should allow for that marginal possibility. Maybe that means you think all sane atheists are agnostic atheists instead of gnostic. /shrug

I was raised in a household that was technically Catholic, but both of my parents, of course, had to be freaks about spirituality. I remember when I was six I claimed something (I think a villain on television) was 'evil' and my father chewed me out, saying 'evil' was 'some Christian concept', and not to say it. So, then I couldn't say evil around him for years. My mom made me apologise to Jesus for using his name in vain when I was three (and just copying what she had done a few minutes ago...), and over the years she's repeatedly expressed her Christian views (usually in conversations with her about science, for example), but I... can't even describe her beliefs. It's like some hybrid religion that she plagiarised from major religions around the world or something. She prays to Judas Iscariot for me, something I find disturbing.

Anyway, I was raised believing in God, which was weird since I pretty much immediately rejected Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and proved to my mother that I knew she was the Tooth Fairy. Being indoctrinated at school didn't help; I don't know if it's just a thing with schools in my town or Australian public primary schools in general (shouldn't they be secular? This has bothered me for a long time), but from the year you start school, one day a week, you do Scripture classes. Which are what they sound like. At the first school I went to, people from the nearby Baptist church came and preached to us and taught us Bible stories and about God for an hour a week, then we'd pray. It was opt-out, but you needed a signed permission slip, and as five-year-olds we all thought the guy with an atheist father who pulled him out of Scripture was a freak 'cause 'everyone does Scripture', so nobody got theirs signed. Most of the things preached to us were relatively unobjectionable, though I remember them telling us Halloween is a celebration of evil and makes God unhappy. We did not receive any other religious education, just Baptist Scripture.

When I was ten I became severely depressed and began to question a number of things, including God. I realised that when I thought about it and questioned my faith, my faith didn't hold up. It was hard for me to work through everything I was taught, though, and for years, I questioned and struggled. It contributed to my depression, because I began to feel that I was a bad person for questioning God. About when I was thirteen, I wiped my hands of the entire thing and admitted to myself I didn't believe in God, Hell, or divine punishment. Stopping the constant fretting of 'what if' helped a lot. I accepted I couldn't prove God didn't exist any more than I couldn't prove fairies didn't exist, but that didn't mean I needed to be down on myself about it. I was certain enough and punishing myself for that certainty was a leftover from what I had been taught as a child: not to doubt God, not to question God, that doubters are bad people and suffer. Thanks, Scripture.

I went to a Catholic private school, where the mandatory Religious Education (Year 7 & 8) unit was just 'Catholic education', and we had chapel several mornings a week. Fair enough, it was a Catholic school, but then I left for a public school, and... guess what? Scripture continued into high school, but since I'd shaken off the indoctrination, I knew this was absolute rubbish and had my mother sign the permission slip. (I was pissed off it was eating into my classes too...) I actually wrote a few letters to the school, complaining about the availability of only one type of religious education.

I didn't have the permission slip signed in advance of the first Scripture lesson, and they made me go. That was actually the first time I admitted to anyone but myself I didn't believe, since I protested I didn't feel comfortable listening to that stuff anymore (since it had made me feel so bad when I was a child, and I am very against the principle of Scripture lessons for young children in public schools). The lesson was on 'love', and when they said romantic love was between a man and a woman and homosexuality is bad and some other stuff that disgusted me (especially as a queer person myself), I left. So did my friend. I had my permission slip signed after that, and I wrote a letter of complaint to my school. They said they'd 'look into' the speakers, but my friend, who never had her slip signed fsr, later told me nothing was done about it. We did have a few 'motivational speakers' preach to us as well. Australia, where you aren't safe, even in public schools!

I'll add that I don't mind if other people are religious, but I find this kind of class in public schools really objectionable, and it continues to bother me, even now I'm in uni and obviously nothing of the sort happens. =\

Myzozoa: In response to your question, during my questioning years I thought a bit about other religions, and came to the conclusion I have no more reason to believe in the existence of any kind of deified being than I do in the God I was raised to believe in.
 
Huh? I would say I'm atheist. I don't believe in God and reject the possibility he exists full stop. I could be wrong though I suppose... thankfully though I'm not some omniscient being who's always right!
I would also say I'm atheist. However I would not say that I reject the possibility that a god exists simply because you can easily define god in such a way that not only does he exist, he's a logical necessity. (God is the laws of physics, the natural order of things, etc.)

Surely as an agnostic if you're unsure as to whether god exists or not as you can't prove it, does that mean you are open to the prospect of the invisible pink unicorn orbiting the earth simply because you cannot prove nor disprove it? You cannot (as far as I know?) prove or disprove Star Wars didn't really take place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, but it seems silly to me to not just reject that as a possibility full stop. As I said there is a possibility I could be wrong, but it seems to me so infinitesimally that it is negligible and not worth considering.
Agnosticism, as I use it, simply means you can not know if god exists or does not. It's not a fence sitting position. You could easily be an agnostic christian, agnostic atheist etc.
If you legitimately believe god exists and can prove it, then there are two scenarios:
1. your proof is farcical and you are therefore insane
2. your proof is legitimate, but for some insane reason you refuse to share it.

With regards to your point on Unicorns: you can know something does not exist if it is logically impossible. A unicorn can not be both pink and invisible at the same time, hence it can not possibly exist. Star Wars could have existed in a Galaxy far far away so long as the laws of physics apply (no warp speed, sorry). A god could not possibly have created man in his own image because the image of man has been constantly changing for millions of years.

If you specify a single god, it's possible to go through and determine if each is possible or not. However, to say all possible gods could not exist is not valid.

Sorry by the way if I'm confusing definitions of atheism or agnosticism etc, this is just my understanding of it...
I am being pedantic, and should probably take a route more like Brain's above, but I think Agnosticism really works as a qualifier to know how extremely you believe in a god, and we already have indifferent (and many other synonyms) to describe people who really don't give a fuck.
 
Some atheists distinguish between themselves with the concept of (a)gnostic atheism, which perplexes me. I guess I just 'don't get it', since, to me, you are an atheist, or you aren't. Brain summed up my beliefs perfectly: atheism doesn't preclude the marginal possibility of being wrong, it's just cutting the crap. So, I don't see the spectrum that FlareBlitz described as necessitated by the term atheist. God doesn't exist the same way unicorns don't exist, but I can't prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, unfortunately.

I agree everyone should allow for that marginal possibility. Maybe that means you think all sane atheists are agnostic atheists instead of gnostic. /shrug

My understanding of agnosticism is not just that it incorporates the concept of epistemological doubt (which atheism in general does), but that it considers the concept of God entirely removed from epistemology. That is, it's different from saying "invisible unicorns could also exist" because invisible unicorns do not have the ability to bend the laws of the universe to their will (if they did, they would be God Unicorns). Given that God has such an ability, agnostics consider the lack of empirical proof as to his existence completely meaningless (as opposed to gnostic atheists, who consider it evidence that he probably does not exist).

That was an interesting story, by the way. I wasn't aware that Australia's public school system was so mired in religious influence - I went to high school in the bible belt and even we didn't have to deal with scripture classes (just really bullshit sex ed).
 
I don't want to start a debate over this, but a great book that addresses these points is I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler. It does address that any and every worldview requires some faith, and some more than others. There's only so much that any religion can prove of their religion, and whatever they can't prove is left up to faith.

I've read this book, and it is built on such fallacious arguments which time and time again have been ripped apart by many people that the book is quite frankly ridiculous and laughable. "Proving" that you need as much faith to be an atheist as you do to be a theist by using arguments like the Ontological, Teleological, and Moral arguments for god is ignorant at best and horrendously dishonest at worst.
 
I don't know which school of thought you're coming from, as there are many who put forth that point of view, some mainstream, others more esoteric. But why do you believe what you do?

I don't really have a school of thought, or if I am coming from one, I'm not sure what it would be. My beliefs are basically my own way of rationalizing what is and isn't "true" (for lack of a better word) based on my own experiences, etc. I haven't studied up on religion really, but I've had my fair share of it to be able to make decisions and form my own beliefs.

But, to basically give you an idea of where they started to take mold, I was thinking one day about how God is all knowing all seeing all powerful all everything, and basically Superman with a beard and a son, and then I was like, well, if he is all powerful, why not just prevent people from sinning? Like, to be short sweet and to the point, I didn't understand how if God is so compassionate and powerful, he allowed us to sin or would banish to an eternity of damnation for sinning when he could just as easily take us to heaven to be behind pearly gates and all that cool stuff. Then I heard about Calvinism (Calvanism?) and the concept of "predestination" (the belief that from the beginning of time, it was predetermined who does and doesn't get into heaven, for those of you who may be unfamiliar) and I thought that kind of explained my confusion for the aforementioned situation. Then I pretty much started to believe in predestination as it's own religion and I rationalized with myself that it didn't really make a difference how I behaved because it was already set in stone who does and doesn't get into heaven so I might as well just wait and find out if I was on the list. I realize that is a pretty naive idea to have, but then I started reading up on karma and how everything evens out good and bad, positive and negative, and I think I pretty much believe that, like as long as you are a good person who tries their best to do good, you shouldn't have to worry about the bad things that happen because good things will happen to you.

I hope that kind of explains where I'm coming from (p.s. I was raised in a Lutheran church, not Catholic, but I agree with your viewpoint on the Catholic church), if not I'm sorry.

That's true. But until you actually PROVE god, you're full ofshit.

You're the reason threads like these get locked.

Also, for the record, not having proof does not disqualify existence. Darwin didn't have proof that Galapagos Tortoises existed before he went there, but they didn't just magically show up the day he arrived. (Irony bringing up Darwin in a religion thread).

I'll get to brain's post in a minute....
 
The point about agnosticism and atheism is that there is really no practical distinction between believing something doesnt exist and not having a belief on the existence of. Either way you will act as though it doesnt exist, so you might as well call yourself an atheist.

Have a nice day.
 
The point about agnosticism and atheism is that there is really no practical distinction between believing something doesnt exist and not having a belief on the existence of. Either way you will act as though it doesnt exist, so you might as well call yourself an atheist.

Have a nice day.
Agnosticism does not in any way claim there is no god, nor does it preclude any beliefs in god. You can be a religious zealot and agnostic as long as you realise no matter what, you will not have proof god exists.

Atheism could be defined in either of the ways Umbreon_Dan read from the dictionary. Both are practically the same, though since they're so similar, why not go with the definition that is (albeit slightly) more accurate?

However, if we deal with this from a purely practical standpoint, if you are indifferent towards religion, you act in the same way an atheist would. (How you would act would depend on your character, not what term you use to represent your religion.) Many forms of deism might also act in the same manner. Hell, there are even some 'christians', 'jews' or otherwise who act the same as an atheist would, that doesn't necessarily change what they believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top