Do you believe in God?

No. And i am from Europe, Europeans are Pagans even tho they accepted made up religions. But people are going back old ways. North America and mainly South America are really into the god thing.

If you ask me both god and satan were made up to scare and control society from religious side of things.

Spirituality and meditations is all you need. I go and meditate in forest like my Pagan ancestors did and it works, unlike praying to god which is a waste of time. Believe in yourself and those around you, meditate and get in touch with your inner self, embrace your light and your darkness, dont fear it, thats how you can change things.

@mjorh: Replying to your image.

See, here's my issue with that. It seems to suppose that a god WOULD care about the well-being of humanity or that such a god would prevent bad things from happening to people.

My thing is that even as an atheist, I don't see that as a valid argument for the lack of existence of a god.

Can you provide a solid reason why a god SHOULD or MUST prevent such things from happening, or that the existence of a god requires him/her/it personally micro-managing everything to an extent that nothing bad ever happens to anyone? Is there any solid reason why the existence of a god means that he/she/it would have any reason to care what happens to humans AT ALL?

@Ovirew: as I said science is just a method we use to study the natural world, logical convulsions are made through observation and experiment no faith needed.

Having faith in science doesn't really make sense

This in itself should indicate that either A) God exists, is evil and doesn't care or B) that God doesn't exist and therefore the more logical reason why no magical miracles help them. If Satan saw a starving child and did nothing theists would say that he was evil but yet God the creator of all does this and gets a free pass?

I mean, what does this achieve? why should children starve to death? if god is omnipotent then why he/she doesn't do anything? I'm not saying that he should micro-manage everything, but I don't get it why there should be children starving to death, everyone should have an opportunity to grow and prosper, why these children should be deprived of that? They literally can't do anything at all but starve to death

Wait, wait...so inaction is evil now?

What do you base that idea on? Why exactly would a hypothetical god be evil for not giving one single shit about you, me, or anyone else? When you leave food in the fridge too long and then dispose of it because it is no longer edible, do you care about the well-being of all those bacteria and fungi? I mean, sure...you COULD accept that you're responsible for them existing in the first place, and that it's therefore your responsibility to ensure their well-being. But why would you do that? They're so freaking far below you that they don't even register on your care-o-meter.

You're applying anthropomorphic values on a hypothetical god. Sure WE care when humans suffer because we are also humans. The question remains: what reason is there to believe that a god would or should care when humans suffer?

So, what's the purpose of God then?

Yes, in my own way

*shrugs*

I don't know. Does a god even have a purpose? Why would a god need a purpose? Even if such a god does have a purpose, what reason would there be to believe that such a purpose would require him/her/it to care about the well-being of each of us (or ANY of us)?

Not to butt in here, but it's because if God is to be proclaimed as morally just, the assertion of his existence doesn't jive with such a demonstration of apathetic neglect towards the well-being of his own creations. A deist wouldn't have much of an issue with this question, but from a theistic standpoint it remains a problem (IMO).

of course, i belive in God

People have too many sticks up their butts when it comes to religious topics. I think if people want to believe in God then they should. If they want to hurt people for their god, then they should be put down. Everyone who has a problem with people wanting to believe in something, they can keep sliding that stick in and out their butts all they want.

I believe in God,Jesus and a better afterlife for those who believe in Jesus Christ.

My take:

Agnostic describes your position of knowledge not your belief, your either a theist or an atheist.

All souls cry out for salvation

God is bullshit

Religion is fake

Nothing in life actually matters. This culture is an illusion. Life is nothing more than a dream.

Again, I don't really see the problem. Since when has moral justice automatically required intervention?

Now, if such a god were actually actively causing suffering, then I could see your point. But the premise isn't that god is actually killing kids, but rather that god is simply letting nature take its course. We do that all the time.

whats your point, the bit you put in bold is not in the definition. Thats your position on knowledge.

However your belief is either "Atheist" (lack of Belief) or Theist (Belief) in God.

You can tag on your knowledge position too, so to be accurate your a "Agnostic Atheist".

Saying your Agnostic on its own doesnt address belief.

@eliminatorpaige: as I said before, your are either a theist or an atheist, it's as simple as that.

Agnosticism is not middle ground, it's addressing knowledge not belief.

@eliminatorpaige: well someone is either a atheist or a theist, one or the other.

Someone could also be an agnostic theist, but just the term agnostic on its own says nothing about belief.

@eliminatorpaige: your the one misunderstanding definitions.

You even posted the definition of agnostic but added your own sentence at the end to suite what you think it means

I just came across this article and wanted to share it:

Way More Americans May Be Atheists Than We Thought.

No, I reject gods, especially the abrahamic war god for multiple reasons,

1. No evidence to support him
2. His "wisdom" contradicts science and history... Hell even back then, the abrahamic religions contradicted known science.
3. I know the history of Judaism. The religion that both Christianity and Islam branched out from.

And lastly. How arbitrary he is. Why would a god who created vastness of cosmos and all of its laws. Some so strange and so alien our mathematical models are still not equipped to deal with them. Why would someone like that give a shit about what day you work on, what you eat, what fabrics you clothes are from, who you sleep with, how you look at women, what you drink. For being supposedly so big, god comes across as really small. Like little more than a remnant of the ideals of ignorant bigoted bronze age savages. Who in their attempts to seem enlightened, just highlighted just how very little they knew. They wrote a book, claiming a god spoke for them, but the more I think of it, the more likely it seems to be these people were more politically motivated by anything. Using a higher being as a mascot, to push for their ideas.

Great point.

@eliminatorpaige said:

@thehig1 said:

@eliminatorpaige: your the one misunderstanding definitions.

You even posted the definition of agnostic but added your own sentence at the end to suite what you think it means

Google is your friend.

definition of Agnostic, no mention belief in God or Gods, just about knowledge. Google backs up what I have been saying, in short your wrong.

You have no idea what an agnostic is.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

Agnosticism is not a belief, it is a position on knowledge.

Justice has never required intervention, but its absence is indicative to a callous and indifferent creator who's said to intervene in our affairs.

Creation itself leads to situations of immense suffering; God does not need to be actively causing it to be responsible for it. That he creates us and then neglects us when he has the power to intervene doesn't align in claiming that he's intrinsically a moral, just, and loving being. If believers claim that he HAS to be those things if he exists (and that's the claim), of what case do they have? Sure, believers would throw free will my way (it's an illusion), not something I believe in, and furthermore does not cover many situations that have nothing to do with it. Original Sin? Part of the package God made, eternally penalizing and condemning his own creations for simply the curiosity of their nature that he imbued within them.

God created us and set the table, the buck stops with him. He doesn't need to come in actively cause suffering in a context he's 100% responsible for enabling to be accountable for it. He's top tier, he is ultimately responsible for it, even if he's only sitting back and gaining amusement from watching us squirm.

I read the source to completion. Did you? You posted another source with a conflicting definition. Agnostic is a position on knowledge, it is not a belief. This is very basic philosophy.

I believe in God but do not believe in the Church. A God is comforting through life and has so many psychological benefits, however, a Church is there, for one thing, to take your money to improve the Church. Jesus once said thy body is thy temple. I know I'm using it out of context but the quote is still good to me. My church is in my head along with my beliefs

Because logic and philosophy are wrong and you are right.

Okay, you win.

Agnostic is derived from "without knowledge" It is not a belief structure. You can be an agnostic theist or an gnostic theist. Same for Atheist.

Although just because you say you know something doesn't mean it is true.

I myself am an agnostic atheist.

I have never seen anything close to a proof in god so I don't carry any confidence that one exists. Yet I cannot claim I know a god doesn't exist because it's preposterous to have knowledge on the nonexistence of something.

@eliminatorpaige said:

@thehig1 said:

@eliminatorpaige said:

@thehig1 said:

@eliminatorpaige: your the one misunderstanding definitions.

You even posted the definition of agnostic but added your own sentence at the end to suite what you think it means

Google is your friend.

definition of Agnostic, no mention belief in God or Gods, just about knowledge. Google backs up what I have been saying, in short your wrong.

Next time you use a screenshot, don't edit out things.

I can confirm that when I google "agnostic definition" I get the first result not yours.

Yes I believe I God. I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and everyone elses and whoever choses to follow him will not perish but be granted eternal life. I have seen miracles my whole life and I have been given the most precious gift of all a child. <3

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. - John 3:16

Wait, wait, wait...wouldn't this apply to, like, having kids?

I mean, shit...people bring PEOPLE into the world, but there still comes a point where you know that you're leaving them on their own.

If I had a kid right now, best case scenario is that I'd be leaving that kid on his own by the time he's 40. Realistically, more like 20. Would it be WRONG for me to have a child, since I have the power to NOT have kids?

Hypothetical question: if god is evil for "creating us" (and this creation may only extend to "creating a universe in which the emergence of life is possible as an independent natural phenomenon") and then abandoning us, then are you saying that it would be BETTER for god to have created a lifeless universe? Or...not created a universe at all? Because it kind of seems like you're ranking a COMPLETELY DEAD universe as better than a universe that's full of life. I mean, there are kind of two ways that god could avoid "creation and then neglect". The first is by taking care of everyone so that no one suffers, which is sort of at odds with the concept of "nature". The second is by NOT CREATING SHIT. Are BOTH of those scenarios preferable to the universe that we have now?

Furthermore, it gets weirder once we factor in evolution. If you believe in evolution, and that any existing god is an unjust god for not intervening in natural affairs, then it sort of stands to reason that the best thing that god ever could have done is prevented us from ever existing. After all we're only here as a result of a LOT of death. Look at our freaking teeth, we're "designed" to not only eat mindless plants but also ANIMALS. We're the result of an unbroken chain stretching back billions of years to when the first microorganisms appeared on this planet. So if god is somehow unjust for not personally saving HUMANS from the effects of nature, then...is god somehow supposed to be a-okay with the long string of death that got us here?

No one really asks why god let the dinosaurs and the trilobites and the giant sloths die. That's perfectly cool, because that ended up with US. But the notion of US ending up just like the things that died in order for us to be here? Unjust god!

I mean, if we follow your argument to extension, then the first organisms to arise on this planet (or more accurately, "the universe") would have been the ONLY organisms to ever exist. Because if god cared about them, and was a just god, he would have stopped evolution in its tracks in order to save a bunch of microbes from nature (which would therefore mean that we and the dinosaurs and the trilobites and the giant sloths would have never existed).

And I know that at some point someone is thinking, "but the hell with microbes, they're garbage compared to us." Right. And we might be garbage compared to whatever's around 500 million years from now. So...if we're gonna go with god being unjust because he doesn't save all of us from suffering, then shouldn't we at least be consistent and accept that god is unjust for ever allowing us to exist in the first place?

Quick point here. No one does or does not believe in evolution, its not subjective, its not an opinion, its a fact. They either accept the fact that the sun exists, or they don't.

Wrong. People disbelieve facts all the time, as well as believing things that are completely 100% false.

More to the point, what I'm saying doesn't have anything to do with whether or not evolution is real. If you're one of those hardcore fundies who thinks that god created the world as it is and that stuff like FOSSILS are just Satan trying to sway you away from god, then you're WRONG. But the way that you're wrong is at least consistent with thinking that god would be an asshole for not saving some kid from starving.

So yeah...if that's the logic that we're going with, then I'd might as well duck out of this discussion because that'd be worse than arguing with someone who thinks the world is flat and outer space doesn't exist.

However, if we accept that evolution is real, then go back to the picture that I was referring to. The tragedy isn't that some kid is skinny and sad and presumably starving. The REAL tragedy would be that enough death and suffering has existed in the world to allow that kid to exist in the first place.

Where do we draw the line here? Exactly which organisms were god supposed to let die, and which were he supposed to save?

Improper use of the word.

You cant believe or disbelieve facts. You either recognize and accept them as reality or you don't. When we use the term "belief", especially in a religious terms, its the implication of something unknown or subjective, faith. Not to nit pick definitions here but its kind of important that we don't muddy the water on this one. What you're essentially doing is taking multiple definitions for "belief" and mixing them or swapping parts in and out. As we see so often with religious arguments and presentations, they rely on altering something in order to make their point. Sadly the words "belief" and "believe" are victims of this practice. Much like "theory" or "nothing". Actually "nothing" might not apply, but i think you get the idea.

The second part of your post (evolution onward) delves into the territory of pantheism and I'm arguing this from a viewpoint of theism. It's within that context that I'm curious how God can be seen to exist and and still be stated to be decent and caring God when he can intervene but doesn't.

Would it be wrong to have a kid if I have the option not to? That depends on the circumstance. If you place people into seemingly random situations that can lead to horrific ends from the very start and never come to their aid, an argument can easily be made that that is an act that's at best indifferent, at worst immoral and downright cruel. This is not to mention a further mandated act of faith throughout their lives in the face of eternal torture if they don't submit. Is it wrong in that instance? Yeah, it's wrong, and it'll be a cold day in Hell before I'd ever call God loving in such a case.

As to your question pertaining to the topic: if a God is said to exist and that he is intrinsically just, good, and loving and one that also intervenes in people's affairs, yes, the only preferable options by him are to create an ideal universe he controls, or nothing at all. To do otherwise is what I call sadistic, and incompatible with such a God.