Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

It's 5 years of studies, but to get your license you have to do on year of internship.

 

Unless you are agnostic theist who believes that there is a God, but you can't prove He exists (to others)... but that's beside the point.

I like it better when atheists call themselves Agnostic because that means they are open to the idea that God exists while atheists that call themselves Atheist tend to be closed to the idea that God exists. It's the difference between believing in something that you can't prove (you can't prove a negative; therefore, you can't prove that God doesn't exist) and being a person of Reason.


And btw, how long to do I have to stop posting before people remove my name from their signatures? Do they really want to keep my memory alive?

 

What a relief, Xyle hasn't died in unimaginable pain after all.

 

See? It clearly works, too.

 

That's not the definition of the word. You're just taking advantage of xyle's suggestibility.

Agnostic.

There's nothing in there about atheism, so you guys have been talking to PC atheists who can't bear to defend their own belief, or people who don't know what words they use to define themselves mean.

I didn't know smuel made that post until you quoted it, xyle.
I simply don't believe I'm truly an atheist, because I just have a feeling of something more I can't explain. I may substitute the character of god for something else, something I can understand, but it's simply a placeholder for something I don't believe anyone can ever know.

But, calling God a negative is false. Calling God a positive is false. Proving something doesn't exist isn't just possible;
It's done often enough for it to be a "thing."

For example, the luminous ether, aka the medium of electromagnetism. When physics was young, people believed all waves of energy needed a medium. When an experiment to discover the effect of motion on light waves through the medium was conducted and determined light's speed was not dependant on the receiving body's motion, the ether was proven nonexistant.

This happens rather often in situations when people have theories regarding something not yet quantified, and this means it can either be proven or disproven. Certainly, there were those crackpots who didn't believe in the ether anyway and were called dolts until that fateful day.

The problem with matters of faith is that requiring proof denigrates faith, and even something that would otherwise attempt to disprove such a matter can be used to bolster the faith within the stubborn. Either believe blindly, or not at all. Asking for proof is contraindicated by your belief structure.

 

I admit, sometimes I called myself agnostic when talking to religious people. I don't believe in God but I know that having concept of God or an idea of God lies in human nature. This concept is present in my mind and it's a nice concept. However, I don't believe in existence of any higher power.

Well, I know what you mean. But many people of strong faith, like Thomas Aquinas or Descartes, tried to prove existence of God (in their eyes succesfully). I also think that having strong faith requires having doubts and looking for proof at some point. How could you believe in God if you never questioned his existence?

 

Sure, you can question as much as you want. But it's in the book written as;

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

Does that sound like something to question? Questions raise doubt, and from that point on you can either accept something as proof of a divine miracle or proof of something far more mundane. Either way, your faith is shaken. You're better off not asking questions. That's the modus operandi of Catholicism, and I've seen many people turned from that brand of Jesusdom simply because they got curious and the Priest couldn't/didn't want to answer any questions.

 

Ok, they are blessed. Which doesn't mean that others are condemned. You know that "blessed are the poor of spirit", right? For me it's a patronizing statement saying that those who are not capable of deep understanding are not excluded from Heaven if they happily comply to God's rules.

Also, you realize that Catholic religion represents only one of many views on the subject and even within Catholic Church you can find people (including priests) who are more open-minded.

 

I had no idea that Catholicism was a singular facet on the whole of Christianity despite it being the one denomination I mentioned.
Really? I would've just said Christianity if that's what I meant.
It's all about interpretation. You said as much yourself. I find this God to be controlling after having read the Bible a few times. The thing is, it's all about a consensus of opinion, and I already know if a person clings to one, they will not readily accept another. There are plenty of people living by God's rules. They tend to be moral xenophobes.

 

Yes, obviously they don't write in the dictionary that agnostic is a way of saying atheist that tries not to offend religious people, because that would give the game away. But the fact remains that all agnostics are atheist with regard to any of the specific Gods described in religions. Either you believe in the existence of a specific God, or you don't. There is no third option of "I can't make up my mind", because that means you don't believe. You may present it as "I need a bit more evidence before I can believe", or "I don't believe but I'm open to being convinced", but these are non-believing positions.

Having a vague feeling that "there must be something more to life that I can't quite put my finger on" is not agnosticism, or belief, it's just a result of being unable to think rationally about reality.

One of those statements is false.

I actually agree with this. The definition of faith is "Belief when there is reason to doubt." You wouldn't say you have faith in gravity, or faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, because there has never been any reason to doubt these things. They are well understood phenomena. However, there are plenty of reasons to doubt that God rewards you with eternal life after you die. For one thing - there is no evidence that it happens. For another thing - all the physical evidence regarding the way your consciousness works suggests that it ceases to exist when your body stops working. So maintaining belief in an afterlife requires a great deal of faith to counteract the reasons not to believe.

It has always baffled me when someone says in an admiring tone "He is a man of great faith." What this really means is "He is a man who is really good at ignoring inconvenient facts." That is not an admirable quality.

 

@Grossenschwamm
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend your intelect. It's probably because of my poor language skills. I just wanted to state that for me the idea of God is bigger than Calothicism.

It's also bigger than Christianity and bigger than the whole market of religions. It's the cause, the fundament of those religions, not vice versa.

As for "moral xenophobes", I wouldn't generalize. I know atheists who tend to be moral xenophobes. I hate Catholic church for many reasons (no shit, I live in Poland). Sometimes I'm a raging atheist and anticlerical maniac. But I have to admit that there are Catholic priests I respect for their openmindedness, knowledge and sensitivity. It's too bad that they are small and not at all influential part of that Church.

 

So I'm an atheist if I don't infallibly believe in any given gods? I can buy that. However, the word agnostic literally means "without knowledge," in this context specifically relating to deities. I suppose my stance would be further delineated as agnostic atheist, but I'm not a dogmatic atheist by any stretch of the word. I simply don't accept or deny the existence of God(s), while a dogmatic atheist would say every god is false.
And not stamping my foot down in the something-or-nothing argument means I can't think rationally? The definition clearly states that an agnostic accepts there are things beyond the grasp of the human mind, and by simplifying my statement in this way you've completely avoided giving me credence for adhering to a given definition. I find accepting there are things beyond my scope as a human is quite rational. Do you think there will ever be a time when humans literally know everything? That's impossible.

Actually, neither is. It's easy to find evidence of nothing, but if something was there, it would've been found, right?
Saying you can't prove a negative is an oversimplication of "you can't prove something doesn't exist," which is itself not in tune with how mathematicians can make proof of something by contradiction.
Math is driven by logic, and I'm certain if it was logical for there to be no way to disprove a concept, there would be no math for it. Yes, I have seen people try using math to actually prove God. Turns out their numbers were arbitrary and also found in the bible.
Given the right conditions, it's easy to be confident in something existing or not existing. It's not like the luminous ether not being there disproved every wave medium.
God is such a fuzzy image that no matter how much proof you dredge up, the faithful will always believe.
"You got that evidence that disproves God because He knows you don't deserve to believe in Him! Fossils are meant to turn us away from Him! Because God is an obfuscating bastard!"
I simply choose to abstain, because the ideal conditions have not been met. However, I wouldn't know what role this "force" would take within a universe I already feel is nearly satisfactorily explained by existing science.

I never said the religious are the only moral xenophobes, though I clearly didn't mention any other group. I'm familiar with obnoxiously vocal atheists shoving their disbelief in people's faces, too. Both sides should respect the other's wishes. Coming down hard on somebody for believing/not believing isn't going to sway anyone in a direction conducive to a change of opinion.

 

Yes, but all the definitions of God that have ever been given by religions include things that are within the scope of human minds, and since you don't believe in those things, you don't believe in any of those Gods, and are therefore an atheist in respect of all known religions.

Sorry, what? You think that the statements "It is impossible to prove that X doesn't exist" and "X was proven not to exist" don't contradict each other? If so, then this discussion is pointless since you clearly don't understand what certain words mean.

That's the key really. In order to have a meaningful debate, we have to define what God is. But I can guarantee you that any definition you come up with will either be trivial to disprove, or else so minimal that it is equivalent to God not existing at all.

As I keep saying, this stance is equivalent to atheism. If you still contest this, perhaps you could give a specific example of how you think it is not. Though if you're going to do that, then be careful to define the word "God" before you use it.

 

No, you don't. Read what I typed. "Proving something doesn't exist isn't just possible," does not mean "It is impossible to prove X does not exist."

With the addition of "just," my statement might make more sense as "Proving something doesn't exist is possible." However, it's all up to the speaker to determine initial phrasing. Though, saying something "isn't just possible" to you obviously means it's impossible, despite it meaning the opposite of that.

I phrased it the way I did because Xyle said "You can't prove a negative."
I refuted that by saying it's both possible and happens relatively often, and the qualifier "just" actually gets the whole thing to make sense. If that word wasn't in there, you could say I don't understand words with authority. However, given you quoted it and still didn't get it right means you don't understand what words mean. That's an example of a Freudian projection if I ever saw it.

Though I agree that saying what you said in a conversation leading up to a single point would contradict itself.

 

Yeah okay, I misunderstood your initial post. The remainder of mine still stands though.

 

I didn't comment on anything else because I agree with the remainder of your post, except that Buddhism has no revered gods (though there are gods called as such in the Diamond Sutras, they are not revered in any way and even admitting they're there isn't required), meaning you're wrong about me not agreeing with "all known religions." That and Taoism. I use a combination of both in my life for the hell of it. The most either of those religions have is a "Cosmic Force" beyond our comprehension, and that is stated clearly in both schools of thought.

It's interesting that you tried to prove your point further despite my own agreement with you in the post you quoted. I'm an agnostic atheist, I didn't rule out the atheism that time because you're right, I don't follow any religion prostrating before a God or gods. However, I was wrong in saying I was simply an agnostic the first time, because there's no such thing as simply being agnostic unless you're using the political sense of the word. There are theists who are agnostic as well, but the difference there is an agnostic theist believes in a god but confesses they can have no real understanding of said god.

All in all, it's pretty amusing;
You attacked my language comprehension while ignoring that you've got a difficulty with it. Twice that I'm actually counting in this particular discussion. Unless you want to say my math is off and reveal how many other times you got the gist of something by blanking out on words within the same sentence/paragraph.

 

The fact that you didn't state overtly that you agreed with the rest of Smuel's post was just a way to lure him out so you could appear superior by dint of the fact he would even question that you didn't agree with his other well argued points. If I'm wrong then tell me otherwise, but wouldn't it had been easier to have said you agreed with the rest of his post before instead of this? Also picking at people for language - which in all fairness you didn't start - when "Proving something doesn't exist isn't just possible" could have been phrased a lot more clearly renders arguments on semantics a bit void.

What I'm curious to understand is what keeps an agnostic's neutrality going? Surely over time evidence would sway you either way? For me, I used to be agnostic; but then on becoming more informed I believe that life came about due to the fact it was favourable for organic molecules to assemble as they did thermodynamically, and eventually enough of these life-giving assemblies got together to produce a cell - again due to favourable interactions. It seems quite arrogant that a high proportion of humanity believes that they are so special as to be created by a higher power who gives two shits about them; who is to say that we aren't just a random accident? I believe when people die they rot in the ground, the best chance of living on is in the memories of others or through media you've taken of yourself - apart from that that's it.

 

I didn't lure him into anything, this is just how it happened. When I don't have anything against a point I'll either directly agree to it or I'll only comment on what I most disagree with within the post, if something happens to be there. You're reading too much into my actions, and honestly people here took advantage of my lack of coherence while I was psychotic and then later while I wasn't sleeping to do the same thing to me as what just happened between myself and Smuel. I don't see anyone calling out those guys when I get hit. But if I have an opportunity it's bad? That's a mighty big double standard you're waving around. Is this simply because you've never seen me this coherent? To be honest, none of you have.

I didn't do this to "appear" anything but wrongfully accused, because that's what happened. Most of his points were certainly well-argued, so I picked certain things to disagree with because I do indeed agree with the majority of his points. The ones I disagree with were not well argued. Where he directly quoted me and kept saying "BUT YOU'RE AN ATHIEST!" I had already agreed with him that I am within the post from which he grabbed that sentence. This isn't just a case of misunderstanding, this is a case of not reading what I wrote and making assumptions, something I too am guilty of. Plus, agnostic doesn't and has never equalled atheist. Again, agnostic theists believe in God or any other gods and know they can't get any real knowledge or evidence supporting that belief.
On top of that, "All known religions" do not revere God or any gods. Most do, but all do not. Had the research been done, he wouldn't have made that point.

I already knew Smuel wasn't reading the entirety of my posts, but I wasn't going to say anything about it until he directly insulted me.

If two similar phrases mean the same thing, to me, they're identical in simplicity. Given my taste for variety (and how I project that same interest on everybody I interact with), I don't really know how it was misunderstood. All I did was put a dramatic spin on the phrase. "It isn't just possible, it happens regularly!" More people than myself must've seen or heard similar phrasing elsewhere. Even Texans.

If I said "Proving a negative" it probably would've been caught right away, but even so...within the context, the meaning inferred was the direct opposite of right. Seriously, given Xyle's "talent" for words, I figured he'd understand it with a bit more drama, and it turns out I somehow confused Smuel. After I was called out a second time, I even asked other people what they thought it meant in the real world, and they knew exactly what I was saying.

As for neutrality? It's healthier to admit something isn't knowable than to say I stand on one side of the fence or the other. However, I am able to gain more evidence of what I'd consider a lack of supernatural processes than evidence for a lack of scientific proof. While I have more science in me than faith, I know there are things I will never know about this universe, hence my admission of a lack of knowledge and therefore reticence to staunchly advocate dogmatic atheism. Why? Concepts are harder to prove/disprove than materials, especially when the concept is as lofty as "Bearded man creates everything. You're one of his billions of kids. Listen to him or go to Hell. Oh, but you can't see or hear him, ever. You just have to believe." I don't agree with something so blunt.

Anything touting a major creation myth is ridiculous to me, but given the commonality of the "moment of creation" and a given "creator," I'd say everyone was at a point where they wanted an answer but had no scientific proof of anything, so something greater than them must've done it. The "Multiverse of Scientists" bit? I read it in an astronomy book when I was in 4th grade.

Considering the concept of God is man made and it's ingrained in humans to seek something similar to us or fear something greater, I get tired of people saying they know the creator from some ancient re-re-retranslated book when it's obvious, at least to me, that nobody is privy to that intimate a knowledge who is alive now or ever has been. I won't be convinced until I am, I suppose.

I'm spent.

 

I raised the point because you had corrected him already and then posting: "All in all, it's pretty amusing; You attacked my language comprehension while ignoring that you've got a difficulty with it. Twice that I'm actually counting in this particular discussion. Unless you want to say my math is off and reveal how many other times you got the gist of something by blanking out on words within the same sentence/paragraph." just seemed like needlessly rubbing in the fact he got it wrong. It's not a double standard, I would do the same to anyone if I felt like it, I'm not just singling you out. I guess you're right though; I'm reading too much into things and assigning motives when there wasn't one which I have done before in the past. My post also came off as more antagonistic than I thought it would.

I guess I just consider evidence for "a lack of supernatural processes" almost as good as "evidence for a lack of scientific proof", because if one part of the hypothesis about gods is wrong (that they have supernatural abilities) it leads indirectly to the rest of the hypothesis being wrong (that gods exist in the first place). I know that isn't always the case, but it often is. I also think the idea of a creator of the universe, which is different from a god I guess, is wrong by dint of the fact it does create an infinite loop of "who created the creator" as people have already stated - even if we were created by some great power, and that power was created by someone else, etc., there must come a point where existence came from nothing. If existence at the origin came from nothing, then there probably isn't a sequence in the first place and our existence did just come about because it was favourable to happen via the big bang.

I suppose your stance is well argued though; I'm not here to try and convince you you're an atheist. I was just curious as to what motivates people to remain in the middle ground.

 

Hmm, well in practice, atheism is a dogmatic statement. For instance, Richard Dawkins is an arrogant jerk. Also, buddhist sects with a doctrine of atheism still have participated in religious war, evangelicism and persecution.

Agnosticism is not dogma, it is an honest 'I don't know'.

Whether or not people actually believe what they say they believe is another kettle of fish altogether.