The God Arguement

[lazs2]

LOL.. an athiest is someone who is brave enough to admit that there is no god?

That is beyond silly.   it is a little boy whistling in the dark past a grave yard...  an insecure person shaking his fist at people because they have found something he can not.

An agnostic is someone who hasn't found the courage?   LOL...  you little boys and your agendas...  You will admit the possibility of ghosts or aliens or bigfoot or mindreaders or ... any of a number of silly things but when it comes to a god...

you not only refuse to admit the possibility... even tho you have no other answer.. but... you attack anyone who does have a god.. unless they are PC at the time like muslims...  (enemy of my enemy and all that)

To declare oneself an athiest is to declare an agenda.   It is a belief every bit as strong as the most fervent muslims... Yours is the only god and that god is... no god.. or man in most cases.    It is easy to make fun of most organized religions and their beliefs... it makes you look smart and witty.

Stating your athiest belief makes you look like an idiot with an agenda... much like a televangilist to me.  

Agnostic seems a logical thinking path to me for one who has seen no evidence of god in their life... who sees all around him and says... "I still don't know how this came about"  

I put athiests in the same class as the unwashed nutjob on the street wearing the huge wooden cross neckless and babbling in tounges... Just a person to avoid.\

lazs

[phookat]

Originally posted by lazs2
I don't care if you have a god or not.    I am only listening to what you say and trying to see if it makes sense or not.

Am I saying anything that doesn't make sense to you?  Out with it then.  I know you have a tendency to be softspoken, but please feel free to point out any errors in what I am saying.

Originally posted by lazs2
I believe that athiests are dangerous and silly and dishonest at the same time..

I don't think that necessarily follows.  You can be an atheist and be a bad person, no doubt, but you can also be an atheist and be a good person.

Originally posted by lazs2
I told you...agnostics don't bother me in the least.   Are you saying that you are an agnostic?   that no one can prove it either way?

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, no one can prove it 100% either way.  That doesn't mean I am an agnostic.  To address both you and Gunthr on this point, I think SirLoin put it very well:

Originally posted by SirLoin
An Athiest is someone who has overcome his/her fear of being judged of their beliefs from a non-existant God.


An Agnostic is someone who has not overcome this fear.

And I would just add this, to those like Lukster who think this is a statement of "certainty".  It is not.  If there is no evidence for God, then God is as likely as the Bogeyman, and there is no reason to fear either.  An agnostic says there's a 50-50 chance.  An atheist says that, based on the lack of evidence, God is extremely unlikely, but he (usually) recognizes the inherently unfalsifiable nature of the concept of God.  If you read someone on the internet saying they are "disproving" God, chances are that the position they actually hold is the one I describe above, i.e. they don't really think it is possible to be 100% sure (although I have heard that there are a few people who think otherwise, and I would say they are incorrect).

[phookat]

Before I get to the rest of the replies, I'll respond to this.  I think I've addressed most of the things you say here, but a couple points:

Originally posted by lazs2
you attack anyone who does have a god.. unless they are PC at the time like muslims...  (enemy of my enemy and all that)

Don't assume that.  I think that the Muslim faith contains a number of absolutely repulsive and barbaric beliefs and is a source of great evil.

Originally posted by lazs2
Agnostic seems a logical thinking path to me for one who has seen no evidence of god in their life... who sees all around him and says... "I still don't know how this came about"

We are in agreement here; I think we are just calling things by different names.  Any intellectually honest person recognizes that we don't know everything, indeed it may be possible that we cannot know everything.  With our partially evolved mammalian brains sitting here in this tiny corner of the universe, what right have we to assume that all knowledge is available to us?  But that's not evidence for God.   Just because we don't (or can't) know everything, doesn't mean there's someone who does.

[phookat]

Originally posted by Gunthr
phookat, on a slightly different tack, please explain the difference between an atheist and an agnostic in your view.

See my reply to laz above.

[lazs2]

you are saying that the defenition of athiest is bravery?   that the defenition of agnostic is one who holds a 50/50 chance belief?

These are defenitions I have not heard before.    I would say they were more justifications than they were definitions.

You seem to think that there are degrees of athiesm...  that is like saying there are degrees of believing in god....  that a thiest may admit the possibility of there not being a god.

Why have agnostic at all in the mix?   you are saying that you are some kind of enlightened athiest.. that you can't get your science to really actually 100% prove there is no god and you can't explain 90% of what is around you..

so we have it... you think there are degrees of theist and athiest and well.. maybe not agnostic...you define them as being at an exact 50/50 split.... laughable.

you admit your agenda by calling yourself an athiest but giving it a degree of faith... an athiest scientist so to speak... you say that you can not be sure but you strongly feel that... that what?

There there may or may not be a god?   You are an agnostic who just likes to look hip.

The word athiest is worthless without the religion of belief it entails.. the agenda..  you can't be a degree of athiest...you either are or are not.

if you don't pray at the altar of athiesm or at the alter of theism then you are just a plain old garden variety agnostic..

nothing special.



lazs

[Gunthr]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
phookat, on a slightly different tack, please explain the difference between an atheist and an agnostic in your view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See my reply to laz above. - phookat

Phookat, respectfully, your answer to Lazs does not address my question.   it would be helpful to my understanding of your position if you would please give your working definitions of:

1.  atheist

2. agnostic

[phookat]

Originally posted by uberhun
What is God?
answer: God is all
Who is God?
answer: God is all
What is religion?
answer: Man made nonsense.

Man has a limited understanding of the universe. The universe is a complex mathamatical wonder that has many questions unanswered.
We exsist in many ways it is our perception and our rational minds that confuse us. Does God exsist?  Answer: Of course!

This is the way Spinoza and Einstein saw it.  Basically, it is defining God = Universe, or God = Reality.  Einstein especially was fond of talking about his sense of awe of the wonders of the cosmos (an awe which myself and many others share).  But this is not an intelligent God, or a personal God who answers prayers or cares about using his name "in vain".

[phookat]

Originally posted by lazs2
that you can't get your science to really actually 100% prove there is no god and you can't explain 90% of what is around you..

My science?  It's your science too.  If you don't think so, stop driving your car.

Originally posted by lazs2
you admit your agenda by calling yourself an athiest

What's *your* agenda, laz?  Have I actually said anything incorrect, or are we just quibbling about terms?  The "points" you are raising do not address the substance of anything I said.

Let me ask you this.  What's *your* position?  Do you think there's a 50-50 chance that God exists?  Or do you think it's a bit more unlikely than that?  And what are the reasons for your position?

[phookat]

Originally posted by Gunthr
Phookat, respectfully, your answer to Lazs does not address my question.   it would be helpful to my understanding of your position if you would please give your working definitions of:

1.  atheist

2. agnostic

Agnostic: thinks it is impossible to say anything about God one way or another, hence a-gnost (lack of knowledge). Therefore 50-50 chance that God exists.

Atheist: thinks there's no evidence for God.  God as likely as Celestial Teapot orbiting Mars, and other non-disprovable non-falsifiable notions.

[phookat]

Originally posted by AKIron
The inability to entertain uncertainty might be characterized as fear.

See my reply above.  This is not a matter of "certainty", it's a matter of lack of evidence.

[Hap]

Originally posted by lazs2 Stating your athiest belief makes you look like an idiot with an agenda[/B]

Lazs, I just started reading a slim volume, 150 pages, that you might like.  You and the author's mind both pick up on the same sort of things.

Maybe even work some of the same ways.

I venture to say that your conclusions may differ, but when I read you last post, I immediately thought of the book.  I'm about 30 pages in so far.

Or, you're starting to make sense to me, and I'm doomed.  

G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy is the book.

He has wit, he's smart, writes really well without ever boring his audience.  He talks about important things.

Probably can get it at the library or they can get it for you if you're interested.

[phookat]

Originally posted by E25280

Someone has not heard of the book of Revelation.

At the appointed hour, he will.  It simply has not yet come to pass.


Jeesh, even I knew that one.

That doesn't answer the question.  Why doesn't God appear now and dispell most of our doubts by a simple demonstration as I described?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by phookat

 And I would just add this, to those like Lukster who think this is a statement of "certainty".  It is not.  If there is no evidence for God, then God is as likely as the Bogeyman, and there is no reason to fear either.

I think it faulty reasoning to assume there is no evidence of the God many claim. I suggest that evidence abounds and is even clear in your very ability to question it. Attributing everything that is to the poorly understood magic of quantum mechanics as a means of denying accountability is certainly your prerogative (free will and all), at least for now.

[lazs2]

Of course it is everyones science but most of us have a very agnostic view of most scientific theory that is stated as fact.

And yes... I am indeed quibbling about "terms" as you put it.  Words mean something despite your feeble attempts to justify an untenable position.

As to my posititon..  I believe in god... just as I have stated here and in the past... I have a Johnny Cash "personal Jesus" who listens to me and guides me and gives me strength when I could not have gotten the strength otherwise.

I have to do some work tho... I have to accept it even when it is difficult.   I would not expect you to understand but I would expect you to be happy for me.

An athiest by pure definition..  would attack such a belief.. I believe that to attack others belief is an agenda.   When someone says that he has a god in his life and that it is good and then an athiest spouts off that there is no god.. well.. you have to be pretty stupid or dishonest to not recognize the agenda..

Agnostisism on the other hand... is rooted in science.. it says that there is no proof so he will wait and see... no harm no foul.

An agnostic can have degrees.. unlike theist or athiest.. an agnostic has the right to say that he thinks that there is no god but that he admits the possiblility that there may be.. the athiest has no right to say such.

What have you said that is not correct?   what have you even said?  the definitions you gave of the types are incorrect.. the whole wall of words justifiying your agenda are meaningless.  who cares if the person who believes in god also believes those who don't need to be put to death?  especially in a time where belivers and non believers both believed that a person should be put to death for any number of crimes including stealing a loaf of bread or being adultrous...or killing the kings deer to survive.

lazs

[phookat]

Originally posted by Seagoon
But even then, I'm not sure of the value of this line of argument. I'm especially wary of ivory tower arguments that seek to disqualify someone from expressing an opinion because they don't have "formal training" in the subject. For instance, some of the wisest individuals I've met have been largely self taught and some of the people I've met with the least common sense have been highly educated - and I know whom I'd rather ask for personal advice.  Also, when it comes to the board, as far as I know I'm one of the only individuals here who has formal training in theology and the bible, but you can feel free to whack me in the head with a two-by-four if I suggest that only people with "formal education" be allowed to discuss God.

That's not what I was getting at Seagoon.  And I think you know it.  I have to say I am a little disappointed that you would stoop to a strawman version of my post to make a demagogic statement like the above.  In all of this post you failed to address the points I raised against your position: namely that even is you assume a creative entity, there's nothing to indicate that it is intelligent, or that it is the Christian God.

The point once again, is that Cosmology is indeed a science, not a philosophy.  When evidence is examined and theories proposed based on the evidence, it is science at work.  Philosophers (such as you and Aquinas) don't know enough to say much of anything about this extremely complex and confounding topic, any more than you can say anything about quantum mechanics.  So yes, you do have to have knowledge to comment constructively in this field.  You are giving us a simple answer (like Aquinas) and saying "hey there's no reason to think a simple answer can't work, except for those atheists that want to deny God."

Here's why both you and Aquinas are incorrect to think that you have a proof.  Both of your "proofs" depend on an intuitive understanding of reality, an understanding that often fails.  For example, consider the following "proof":

1) Rocks have certain physical characteristics.
2) When I cut a rock in half, I get two rocks that are smaller and of the same character as the original rock.
3) By induction, therefore, rocks are made of continuous and solid matter.

Can you spot the flaw here?

Our intuitions often mislead us in science.  The reason for that is simple: our intuition is the product of a long and contingency-filled evolution.  Those traits of our intuition that helped us survive and reproduce were selected for.  An intuitive understanding of matter at the atomic level, or of the cosmos at the extremes of space-time, were not among the selection criteria in a world of sabre-tooth tigers and wooly mammoths.  So our intuition is especially suspect in those far-ranging areas of theory.

Look at Aquinas's Prime Mover "proof".  How does he come to that conclusion?  Because he can put a ball on a table, and it doesn't move until he pushes it.