Do you believe in god?

[beafheart]

Is the position of the ostrich. When there are no arguments, then they simply do not recognize evidence of common sense and science. It seems to me that all who truly believe in God just not in school.

[1714867275]

1714867275

[1714867275]

1714867275

[1714867275]

1714867275

[GMPoison]

BADecker would argue that DNA proof and radio carbon dating is a lie like all science.

The joke is that U. S. Christians feel superior. That type of superiority causes some of the worst hatred and crimes against humanity imaginable. Years ago when I was a kid, my mother knew a sweet little old white woman that looked like a TV representation of the perfect grandmother. I actually overheard her tell my mother that lynching black people shouldn't be a crime because god said all the animals on the earth are for man to use any way he wants to. That scared the crap out of me. I really think she would believe eating black people is perfectly fine because they're just animals.

I don't believe BADecker would argue this.

The radio carbon dating process is extremely accurate. The thing that is foolish is thinking that C-14 was always in abundance throughout the world as it is now.

Imagine that there was no C-14 being created prior to 5,000 years ago. Why imagine this? Because nobody knows whether or not C-14 was being created 5,000 years ago.

Since nobody knows, and nobody knows whether or not C-14 was being created in the same quantities, down through the ages, as it is now, there is no way to determine through the C-14 "count" how old anything is.

Carbon dating is 100% guess beyond 2 or 3 thousand years ago. The process is flawless. What we base the process on is unknown.

That's what I mean. There's always some bullshit argument why the earth is only 5000 years old, dinosaurs never existed, a boat built of wood with hand tools could support two of every creature on earth, evoulation is wrong and the whole list of Christian circular arguments and assumptions.

Read this: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Contents.htm

You won't read it because the truth scares Christians like nothing else in the world.

What? Now you think the Earth is 5,000 years old? Come on. We have pottery and writings on clay that we can date back 4,500 years without carbon dating.

Stick to the carbon dating point. Nobody knows the amounts of C-14, the ingredient used in carbon dating, that was in existence beyond 5,000 years ago. And even the amounts that existed 2500 years ago are almost complete guestimations. Without knowing these things, there is absolutely no way to use carbon dating to date anything accurately.

What you are doing is trying to hide the fact that this is so, by clouding the carbon dating issue with the idea of religion. Therefore, thank you for helping to prove and advance the point that carbon dating tells us nothing about the age of the Earth.

Christian circular arguments and assumptions.

Atheism ignorance of the facts of science.    

Technically correct. Atheism is the lack of belief of a god. Just like theists claim they know for certain there is a god, atheists claim they know for certain there is no god, they're on exact opposites of the spectrum, but they are on the same spectrum of "beliefs" or "viewpoints". Being an atheist is just as illogical as being a theist. The only viewpoint I can see as logical is agnosticism, the absolute fact that humanity has never and currently does not know whether or not some form of higher being or "god" exists. I think a lot of atheists would label themselves as agnostics, they just don't for whatever reason.

[Kvazimoda]

There is no God. Every year an increasing number of atheists. This is due to the fact that slowly but increasing number of educated people. I am sure that this trend will continue. It is linked to more aggressive behavior of believers.

[GMPoison]

BADecker would argue that DNA proof and radio carbon dating is a lie like all science.

The joke is that U. S. Christians feel superior. That type of superiority causes some of the worst hatred and crimes against humanity imaginable. Years ago when I was a kid, my mother knew a sweet little old white woman that looked like a TV representation of the perfect grandmother. I actually overheard her tell my mother that lynching black people shouldn't be a crime because god said all the animals on the earth are for man to use any way he wants to. That scared the crap out of me. I really think she would believe eating black people is perfectly fine because they're just animals.

I don't believe BADecker would argue this.

The radio carbon dating process is extremely accurate. The thing that is foolish is thinking that C-14 was always in abundance throughout the world as it is now.

Imagine that there was no C-14 being created prior to 5,000 years ago. Why imagine this? Because nobody knows whether or not C-14 was being created 5,000 years ago.

Since nobody knows, and nobody knows whether or not C-14 was being created in the same quantities, down through the ages, as it is now, there is no way to determine through the C-14 "count" how old anything is.

Carbon dating is 100% guess beyond 2 or 3 thousand years ago. The process is flawless. What we base the process on is unknown.

That's what I mean. There's always some bullshit argument why the earth is only 5000 years old, dinosaurs never existed, a boat built of wood with hand tools could support two of every creature on earth, evoulation is wrong and the whole list of Christian circular arguments and assumptions.

Read this: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Contents.htm

You won't read it because the truth scares Christians like nothing else in the world.

What? Now you think the Earth is 5,000 years old? Come on. We have pottery and writings on clay that we can date back 4,500 years without carbon dating.

Stick to the carbon dating point. Nobody knows the amounts of C-14, the ingredient used in carbon dating, that was in existence beyond 5,000 years ago. And even the amounts that existed 2500 years ago are almost complete guestimations. Without knowing these things, there is absolutely no way to use carbon dating to date anything accurately.

What you are doing is trying to hide the fact that this is so, by clouding the carbon dating issue with the idea of religion. Therefore, thank you for helping to prove and advance the point that carbon dating tells us nothing about the age of the Earth.

Christian circular arguments and assumptions.

Atheism ignorance of the facts of science.    

Technically correct. Atheism is the lack of belief of a god. Just like theists claim they know for certain there is a god, atheists claim they know for certain there is no god, they're on exact opposites of the spectrum, but they are on the same spectrum of "beliefs" or "viewpoints". Being an atheist is just as illogical as being a theist. The only viewpoint I can see as logical is agnosticism, the absolute fact that humanity has never and currently does not know whether or not some form of higher being or "god" exists. I think a lot of atheists would label themselves as agnostics, they just don't for whatever reason.

There is strong evidence that God did not create the universe in 6 days, and that Earth is not 6000 years old, and that God did not create man from dirt and a woman from men's rib bone.

Not sure why would you think that a person who does not believe in any of the above, based on evidence, is acting illogically.  
Someone who believes in the above nonsense, is, well, not well.

Every time I comment on this thread the first person to respond to me thinks that I'm talking about Christianity and the god that they recognize, and it pisses me off. I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or fucking Hinduism. I'm talking about the idea of some sort of higher power/being or "god", and the absolute fact that you cannot say for certain as you proclaim there is a god or there is no god.

Please, please, please read this. Stop right now and take away all of your preconceptions about me, religion and agnosticism. Please just read this devoid of emotion and tell me if it doesn't make sense.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley

My beliefs are solely based off the logic that is explained in this quote. Please don't call yourself an atheist (as I'm assuming you do) and instead take to the agnostic position, as any logical person would have to do.

It's a beautiful philosophy to live by:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

[yuiyuga]

I also don't understand how can you fight death? From the fact that you are afraid or not afraid longer you will live. To live forever in hell or in heaven there is no difference. There is neither one nor the other.

So, you have checked throughout the whole universe and beyond, just to make sure?

And what to look for in the other universe? Just look at what remains from the man at the exhumation. Directs the life and thoughts of the human brain. Without it life is not possible. The brain dies with the body. Therefore, there is no heaven or hell.

[af_newbie]

BADecker would argue that DNA proof and radio carbon dating is a lie like all science.

The joke is that U. S. Christians feel superior. That type of superiority causes some of the worst hatred and crimes against humanity imaginable. Years ago when I was a kid, my mother knew a sweet little old white woman that looked like a TV representation of the perfect grandmother. I actually overheard her tell my mother that lynching black people shouldn't be a crime because god said all the animals on the earth are for man to use any way he wants to. That scared the crap out of me. I really think she would believe eating black people is perfectly fine because they're just animals.

I don't believe BADecker would argue this.

The radio carbon dating process is extremely accurate. The thing that is foolish is thinking that C-14 was always in abundance throughout the world as it is now.

Imagine that there was no C-14 being created prior to 5,000 years ago. Why imagine this? Because nobody knows whether or not C-14 was being created 5,000 years ago.

Since nobody knows, and nobody knows whether or not C-14 was being created in the same quantities, down through the ages, as it is now, there is no way to determine through the C-14 "count" how old anything is.

Carbon dating is 100% guess beyond 2 or 3 thousand years ago. The process is flawless. What we base the process on is unknown.

That's what I mean. There's always some bullshit argument why the earth is only 5000 years old, dinosaurs never existed, a boat built of wood with hand tools could support two of every creature on earth, evoulation is wrong and the whole list of Christian circular arguments and assumptions.

Read this: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Contents.htm

You won't read it because the truth scares Christians like nothing else in the world.

What? Now you think the Earth is 5,000 years old? Come on. We have pottery and writings on clay that we can date back 4,500 years without carbon dating.

Stick to the carbon dating point. Nobody knows the amounts of C-14, the ingredient used in carbon dating, that was in existence beyond 5,000 years ago. And even the amounts that existed 2500 years ago are almost complete guestimations. Without knowing these things, there is absolutely no way to use carbon dating to date anything accurately.

What you are doing is trying to hide the fact that this is so, by clouding the carbon dating issue with the idea of religion. Therefore, thank you for helping to prove and advance the point that carbon dating tells us nothing about the age of the Earth.

Christian circular arguments and assumptions.

Atheism ignorance of the facts of science.    

Technically correct. Atheism is the lack of belief of a god. Just like theists claim they know for certain there is a god, atheists claim they know for certain there is no god, they're on exact opposites of the spectrum, but they are on the same spectrum of "beliefs" or "viewpoints". Being an atheist is just as illogical as being a theist. The only viewpoint I can see as logical is agnosticism, the absolute fact that humanity has never and currently does not know whether or not some form of higher being or "god" exists. I think a lot of atheists would label themselves as agnostics, they just don't for whatever reason.

There is strong evidence that God did not create the universe in 6 days, and that Earth is not 6000 years old, and that God did not create man from dirt and a woman from men's rib bone.

Not sure why would you think that a person who does not believe in any of the above, based on evidence, is acting illogically.  
Someone who believes in the above nonsense, is, well, not well.

Every time I comment on this thread the first person to respond to me thinks that I'm talking about Christianity and the god that they recognize, and it pisses me off. I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or fucking Hinduism. I'm talking about the idea of some sort of higher power/being or "god", and the absolute fact that you cannot say for certain as you proclaim there is a god or there is no god.

Please, please, please read this. Stop right now and take away all of your preconceptions about me, religion and agnosticism. Please just read this devoid of emotion and tell me if it doesn't make sense.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley

My beliefs are solely based off the logic that is explained in this quote. Please don't call yourself an atheist (as I'm assuming you do) and instead take to the agnostic position, as any logical person would have to do.

It's a beautiful philosophy to live by:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

Do not twist the issue.  There is absolutely no evidence that any supernatural being exists or ever existed.  All the religious dogmas are just pure, utter nonsense.

If you want to have an honest, philosophical discussion about 'higher power/force', ok, fine here is one thing you have to remember:
  
There is no time for 'God' to exist in before the Big Bang.  So rest assured there is no God before the Big Bang.

And nobody ever detected any 'God/higher power' in this reality, so whatever you are basing your 'agnostic' position on is based on your dreams and wishful thinking.

[CoinCube]

Every time I comment on this thread the first person to respond to me thinks that I'm talking about Christianity and the god that they recognize, and it pisses me off. I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or fucking Hinduism. I'm talking about the idea of some sort of higher power/being or "god", and the absolute fact that you cannot say for certain as you proclaim there is a god or there is no god.

Please, please, please read this. Stop right now and take away all of your preconceptions about me, religion and agnosticism. Please just read this devoid of emotion and tell me if it doesn't make sense.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley

My beliefs are solely based off the logic that is explained in this quote. Please don't call yourself an atheist (as I'm assuming you do) and instead take to the agnostic position, as any logical person would have to do.

It's a beautiful philosophy to live by:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

GMpoison your approach is a logical one. However, you cannot escape the apriori. In matters of the intellect we can follow our reason as far as it will take us without regard to any other consideration but reason can never answer all questions. There will always be a need to make apriori assumptions. Even the refusal to make a choice is a choice and all choices have consequences and shape your interaction with the world. A helpful essay that illustrates the limitation of reasons and science is: The Limits of Science

In your example above you do not define what good is and consequentially what constitutes evil. Without a definition you have no way of actually applying your worldview to reality.

For example one theist view of evil is the following.
http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/12-20.html

All the evil in the world is either:

1) Made by man and permitted by God because the evil is not worse than reducing all of humankind to mindless automata.

2) An effect of nature that God allowed because the alternative would be to prove His existence by intervention, thereby eliminating free will.

3) Something that only seems to be evil from our limited perspective, but wouldn't be judged evil if we have all the facts. These often become clear with sufficient hindsight, although they often do not, as well.

An common atheist perspective is that there is no such such thing as good or evil there is only "i like" and "i don't like" and even that can be reduced to simple biological imperatives which in turn are nothing more then chemical reactions in the brain without underlying meaning or significance.
 
These views when applied to life will take one to very different conclusion regarding what is moral, what is acceptable behavior, and how one should structure ones life. These conclusion in turn have consequences. I discussed some of these consequences in the Health and Religion thread.

[GMPoison]

Every time I comment on this thread the first person to respond to me thinks that I'm talking about Christianity and the god that they recognize, and it pisses me off. I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or fucking Hinduism. I'm talking about the idea of some sort of higher power/being or "god", and the absolute fact that you cannot say for certain as you proclaim there is a god or there is no god.

Please, please, please read this. Stop right now and take away all of your preconceptions about me, religion and agnosticism. Please just read this devoid of emotion and tell me if it doesn't make sense.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley

My beliefs are solely based off the logic that is explained in this quote. Please don't call yourself an atheist (as I'm assuming you do) and instead take to the agnostic position, as any logical person would have to do.

It's a beautiful philosophy to live by:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

Do not twist the issue.  There is absolutely no evidence that any supernatural being exists or ever existed.  All the religious dogmas are just pure, utter nonsense.

If you want to have an honest, philosophical discussion about 'higher power/force', ok, fine here is one thing you have to remember:
  
There is no time for 'God' to exist in before the Big Bang.  So rest assured there is no God before the Big Bang.

And nobody ever detected any 'God/higher power' in this reality, so whatever you are basing your 'agnostic' position on is based on your dreams and wishful thinking.

You didn't acknowledge what I said. Please read again.

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Just because it's never been detected doesn't mean no one ever will. That's just common sense, right? Nothing is ever discovered until it's... discovered, no? Also, your assumption about the big bang being the very beginning is only that... an assumption. Others have made assumptions too that go against that theory.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point

[GMPoison]

GMpoison your approach is a logical one. However, you cannot escape the apriori. In matters of the intellect we can follow our reason as far as it will take us without regard to any other consideration but reason can never answer all questions. There will always be a need to make apriori assumptions. Even the refusal to make a choice is a choice and all choices have consequences and shape your interaction with the world. A helpful essay that illustrates the limitation of reasons and science is: The Limits of Science

In your example above you do not define what good is and consequentially what constitutes evil. Without a definition you have no way of actually applying your worldview to reality.

For example one theist view of evil is the following.
http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/12-20.html

All the evil in the world is either:

1) Made by man and permitted by God because the evil is not worse than reducing all of humankind to mindless automata.

2) An effect of nature that God allowed because the alternative would be to prove His existence by intervention, thereby eliminating free will.

3) Something that only seems to be evil from our limited perspective, but wouldn't be judged evil if we have all the facts. These often become clear with sufficient hindsight, although they often do not, as well.

An common atheist perspective is that there is no such such thing as good or evil there is only "i like" and "i don't like" and even that can be reduced to simple biological imperatives which in turn are nothing more then chemical reactions in the brain without underlying meaning or significance.
 
These views when applied to life will take one to very different conclusion regarding what is moral, what is acceptable behavior, and how one should structure ones life.  

I'm not quite sure what good and bad or right or wrong have to do with anything and why I can't apply my worldview to my reality without a definition of either?

[CoinCube]

I'm not quite sure what good and bad or right or wrong have to do with anything and why I can't apply my worldview to my reality without a definition of either?

As you said

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'

You have to define what is good before you can hold fast by it.

Edit:

On a second look perhaps the quoted author is merely throwing that sentence out there as commentary? Maybe it is this that is the heart of the matter.

it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science.

Yet as we see in The Limits of Science reason cannot ever answer all questions. Faith without reason is impossible to avoid. The apriori cannot be escaped.

[Mersedes]

Every time I comment on this thread the first person to respond to me thinks that I'm talking about Christianity and the god that they recognize, and it pisses me off. I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or fucking Hinduism. I'm talking about the idea of some sort of higher power/being or "god", and the absolute fact that you cannot say for certain as you proclaim there is a god or there is no god.

Please, please, please read this. Stop right now and take away all of your preconceptions about me, religion and agnosticism. Please just read this devoid of emotion and tell me if it doesn't make sense.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley

My beliefs are solely based off the logic that is explained in this quote. Please don't call yourself an atheist (as I'm assuming you do) and instead take to the agnostic position, as any logical person would have to do.

It's a beautiful philosophy to live by:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

Do not twist the issue.  There is absolutely no evidence that any supernatural being exists or ever existed.  All the religious dogmas are just pure, utter nonsense.

If you want to have an honest, philosophical discussion about 'higher power/force', ok, fine here is one thing you have to remember:
  
There is no time for 'God' to exist in before the Big Bang.  So rest assured there is no God before the Big Bang.

And nobody ever detected any 'God/higher power' in this reality, so whatever you are basing your 'agnostic' position on is based on your dreams and wishful thinking.

You didn't acknowledge what I said. Please read again.

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Just because it's never been detected doesn't mean no one ever will. That's just common sense, right? Nothing is ever discovered until it's... discovered, no? Also, your assumption about the big bang being the very beginning is only that... an assumption. Others have made assumptions too that go against that theory.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point

The big Bang theory looks much more persuasive than a fairy tale called the Bible. It seems to me that this is similar to what you'd be offered a ride in the first Ford and don't drive new cars because they did not have before.

[af_newbie]

Every time I comment on this thread the first person to respond to me thinks that I'm talking about Christianity and the god that they recognize, and it pisses me off. I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or fucking Hinduism. I'm talking about the idea of some sort of higher power/being or "god", and the absolute fact that you cannot say for certain as you proclaim there is a god or there is no god.

Please, please, please read this. Stop right now and take away all of your preconceptions about me, religion and agnosticism. Please just read this devoid of emotion and tell me if it doesn't make sense.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley

My beliefs are solely based off the logic that is explained in this quote. Please don't call yourself an atheist (as I'm assuming you do) and instead take to the agnostic position, as any logical person would have to do.

It's a beautiful philosophy to live by:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

Do not twist the issue.  There is absolutely no evidence that any supernatural being exists or ever existed.  All the religious dogmas are just pure, utter nonsense.

If you want to have an honest, philosophical discussion about 'higher power/force', ok, fine here is one thing you have to remember:
  
There is no time for 'God' to exist in before the Big Bang.  So rest assured there is no God before the Big Bang.

And nobody ever detected any 'God/higher power' in this reality, so whatever you are basing your 'agnostic' position on is based on your dreams and wishful thinking.

You didn't acknowledge what I said. Please read again.

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Just because it's never been detected doesn't mean no one ever will. That's just common sense, right? Nothing is ever discovered until it's... discovered, no? Also, your assumption about the big bang being the very beginning is only that... an assumption. Others have made assumptions too that go against that theory.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point

And you think I rejected the 'God' existence just like that?  The intricacy of the world, the evolution of the universe, galaxies, the violent
creation and destruction that has been going on for billions of years, leads me to believe that there is absolutely no design behind the universe we live in.  The life on Earth is not special, there is probably life elsewhere in the universe.

Looks like we have quite a few billions of years to go in this universe, so rest assured there is or will be life elsewhere.

The universe started with a violent explosion and it will probably end with a violent crunch.  And the cycle will start again with a different set of physical constants.

Of course there is probability that 'higher power' might exist.   The odds are about the same as the odds of winged horses or unicorns to exist.

[GMPoison]

Edit:

On a second look perhaps the quoted author is merely throwing that sentence out there as commentary? Maybe it is this that is the heart of the matter.

it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science.

Yet as we see in The Limits of Science reason cannot ever answer all questions. Faith without reason is impossible to avoid. The apriori cannot be escaped.

I believe the heart of the matter is very simply the following:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you think I rejected the 'God' existence just like that?  The intricacy of the world, the evolution of the universe, galaxies, the violent
creation and destruction that has been going on for billions of years, leads me to believe that there is absolutely no design behind the universe we live in.  The life on Earth is not special, there is probably life elsewhere in the universe.

Looks like we have quite a few billions of years to go in this universe, so rest assured there is or will be life elsewhere.

The universe started with a violent explosion and it will probably end with a violent crunch.  And the cycle will start again with a different set of physical constants.

Of course there is probability that 'higher power' might exist.   The odds are about the same as the odds of winged horses or unicorns to exist.

Again, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. The odds may be the same of a winged horse existing, they may not be. One thing is for certain however, neither you or I know, and that is what agnosticism is all about. Simply realizing the fact that you nor I have the answer. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The big Bang theory looks much more persuasive than a fairy tale called the Bible. It seems to me that this is similar to what you'd be offered a ride in the first Ford and don't drive new cars because they did not have before.

Another person who thinks I'm talking about the Bible... yay.

[af_newbie]

Edit:

On a second look perhaps the quoted author is merely throwing that sentence out there as commentary? Maybe it is this that is the heart of the matter.

it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science.

Yet as we see in The Limits of Science reason cannot ever answer all questions. Faith without reason is impossible to avoid. The apriori cannot be escaped.

I believe the heart of the matter is very simply the following:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you think I rejected the 'God' existence just like that?  The intricacy of the world, the evolution of the universe, galaxies, the violent
creation and destruction that has been going on for billions of years, leads me to believe that there is absolutely no design behind the universe we live in.  The life on Earth is not special, there is probably life elsewhere in the universe.

Looks like we have quite a few billions of years to go in this universe, so rest assured there is or will be life elsewhere.

The universe started with a violent explosion and it will probably end with a violent crunch.  And the cycle will start again with a different set of physical constants.

Of course there is probability that 'higher power' might exist.   The odds are about the same as the odds of winged horses or unicorns to exist.

Again, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. The odds may be the same of a winged horse existing, they may not be. One thing is for certain however, neither you or I know, and that is what agnosticism is all about. Simply realizing the fact that you nor I have the answer. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The big Bang theory looks much more persuasive than a fairy tale called the Bible. It seems to me that this is similar to what you'd be offered a ride in the first Ford and don't drive new cars because they did not have before.

Another person who thinks I'm talking about the Bible... yay.

Atheist and Agnostic are just labels.

I think God/higher power does not exist with 99.9999% probability, I do believe God/higher power might exist with 0.0001% probability.

So technically I am an Agnostic.  I give you that.

By this definition all people who do not believe in higher power are Agnostics.

I do not believe in the God of Bible/Quran/Talmud and all other books written by people, those Gods do not exist with 100%
probability as those ancient stories are completely bat shit crazy.  That is very easy to prove.

The other (not from the holy books)  'higher power/undefined God essence' is harder to prove or disprove as there is no evidence.

[GMPoison]

Atheist and Agnostic are just labels.

I think God/higher power does not exist with 99.9999% probability, I do believe God/higher power might exist with 0.0001% probability.

So technically I am an Agnostic.  I give you that.

By this definition all people who do not believe in higher power are Agnostics.

I do not believe in the God of Bible/Quran/Talmud and all other books written by people, those Gods do not exist with 100%
probability as those ancient stories are completely bat shit crazy.  That is very easy to prove.

The other (not from the holy books)  'higher power/undefined God essence' is harder to prove or disprove as there is no evidence.

Fuck dude I wish I could hug you.

I 99.9999% agree with all of the above. Atheist and agnostic are just labels and it's very hard to have constructive debate with those labels. I don't know how to describe what I'm about to say or if there is a word to describe it, but that's why when I discuss these matters with people I tell them to devoid themselves of themselves completely. (Try to) get rid of any emotion, any labels that you may call yourself, and preconceived notions you may have about me or you, any bad or good thoughts about any particular religion or god, any bias you may have, any ego you may have, and just have an open mind to speak logically with one another. There must be a word for it, but I think if everyone in the world could do this, the world would be a much better place and organized religion wouldn't exist in the first place. I think the word I'm looking for is just "logic" however, something most people are incapable of using

At least one other person understands, you made my day.

[CoinCube]

I believe the heart of the matter is very simply the following:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Indeed this is why we call it faith.  

[zuyfg888]

I believe the heart of the matter is very simply the following:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Indeed this is why we call it faith.  

In fact, we all have that God what we are saying, but we have a lot of minds, and a lot of ideas, and thinking about God. It is only just our faith what we are saying, we all have our own faith, and own thinking who will be going to trust on, and we all see, we must know what does this God, and who will be believing on.

[BADecker]

I don't blame any of you atheistic type critters out there. It hurts when there is proof that God exists, that you can't refute. So, since you aren't even refutation minded in the first place, all you jokers are going to be able to do is blab, and blab, and blab.

I kinda pity you all. You are so lost in the woods with your goofy atheism religion. And it hurts to be lost.

Come out of the woods into the comfort and peace that God offers. Peace is there for you right now, just waiting. Why fight this losing battle against the fact of God, as proven by science and shown by nature. You can't win, and if you don't change, you will simply wind up destroying yourselves.

[loreykyutt05]

I don't blame any of you atheistic type critters out there. It hurts when there is proof that God exists, that you can't refute. So, since you aren't even refutation minded in the first place, all you jokers are going to be able to do is blab, and blab, and blab.

I kinda pity you all. You are so lost in the woods with your goofy atheism religion. And it hurts to be lost.

Come out of the woods into the comfort and peace that God offers. Peace is there for you right now, just waiting. Why fight this losing battle against the fact of God, as proven by science and shown by nature. You can't win, and if you don't change, you will simply wind up destroying yourselves.

It is about what will does our mind will going to think, and what we are going to believe on. For me, we all know that God exists, as we all know God exists, we do not have all that faith on Him. Sometimes, if we are experiencing bad things, we do not know what will going to happen, we are going to trust on God, but others are different. they do not have enough trust to God. There is a lot of beliefs and faith who will be believing on, it only depends on what person are you.

[Xester]

Every time I comment on this thread the first person to respond to me thinks that I'm talking about Christianity and the god that they recognize, and it pisses me off. I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or fucking Hinduism. I'm talking about the idea of some sort of higher power/being or "god", and the absolute fact that you cannot say for certain as you proclaim there is a god or there is no god.

Please, please, please read this. Stop right now and take away all of your preconceptions about me, religion and agnosticism. Please just read this devoid of emotion and tell me if it doesn't make sense.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley

My beliefs are solely based off the logic that is explained in this quote. Please don't call yourself an atheist (as I'm assuming you do) and instead take to the agnostic position, as any logical person would have to do.

It's a beautiful philosophy to live by:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

Do not twist the issue.  There is absolutely no evidence that any supernatural being exists or ever existed.  All the religious dogmas are just pure, utter nonsense.

If you want to have an honest, philosophical discussion about 'higher power/force', ok, fine here is one thing you have to remember:
  
There is no time for 'God' to exist in before the Big Bang.  So rest assured there is no God before the Big Bang.

And nobody ever detected any 'God/higher power' in this reality, so whatever you are basing your 'agnostic' position on is based on your dreams and wishful thinking.

You didn't acknowledge what I said. Please read again.

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Just because it's never been detected doesn't mean no one ever will. That's just common sense, right? Nothing is ever discovered until it's... discovered, no? Also, your assumption about the big bang being the very beginning is only that... an assumption. Others have made assumptions too that go against that theory.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point

The big Bang theory looks much more persuasive than a fairy tale called the Bible. It seems to me that this is similar to what you'd be offered a ride in the first Ford and don't drive new cars because they did not have before.

I do not believe in big bang theory. Can you prove to me that it is true ? Are you there when it happened? There is more truth in the bible than your big bang theory. The reason why God cannot be proven by science is because we are not god. Only God can prove that he is God. Bible is not a book of reason and scientific discovery it is a book of faith.