Do you believe in God?

I wasn't talking about religious terms, I was talking about evolution.

Would you say that it's incorrect for me to say that I don't "believe" my wife's claims that she isn't cheating on me? You can't believe your P.O.S. cousin when he says that he wasn't the one who left the front door unlocked for the crooks who just burgled your home?

Me: "I didn't rat you out to the cops."

Some Other Guy: "I don't believe you."

Me: "Well, technically belief doesn't apply here. Whether or not I ratted you out to the cops is not subjective, it is a matter of fact. Either it's true that I ratted you out, or it's false that I ratted you out. There is no belief here. All you can do is accept that facts exist."

Yes, "belief" implies the unknown...on the part of the person who disbelieves facts. After all, if it was a KNOWN FACT from their perspective, then they wouldn't be "believing" shit that is completely 100% wrong. Hell, why even make a distinction between religious and secular matters? By your logic, there's no believing or disbelieving in a god either. After all, there either are one or more gods, or there aren't. The fact that it hasn't been proven who is correct doesn't make it any less of a black-and-white/true-or-false claim.

@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.

Same definition, you f u c k that strawman up good.

Can you answer this question...(hint, the answer is either yes or no)

Are you a Theist ?

If you answer "Yes" then you are a "Theist"

If you answer "No" then you are an "Atheist"

(I live in UK.) I was out for a walk the other day and advertised on local double decker bus where films and other adds are posted a strange add which was. ISLAM IS PEACE #ISLAMISPEACE with a love heart. If that was god is great or Love God or something it would have to have been taken down. greee. I'm not bothered what you believe that's up to you but for me no I don't believe in god. Religion should not be advertised like that.

I do believe in afterlife in some way or form but its nothing to do with been religious or believing in god I think it just something what happens.

@eliminatorpaige said:

@thehig1 said:

@eliminatorpaige said:

@thehig1 said:

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.

Same definition, you f u c k that strawman up good.

Can you answer this question...(hint, the answer is either yes or no)

Are you a Theist ?

If you answer "Yes" then you are a "Theist"

If you answer "No" then you are an "Atheist"

Go to bed boy. But I do find it funny earlier you said this..

@thehig1 said: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

So is it the same or different? Cut your losses. (FYI, mine is in the definition you claimed it wasn't now it's the same, make up your mind)

Also comedy that you keep tagging that atheism thing in there even though they are not the same thing and I never professed atheism, you assumed it, and ignored Agnostic Theist which is a thing. Let me help you expand your knowledge.

Agnostic Atheist -

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

Agnostic Theist -

Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of a god or God, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of God.

More or less you can never know for a fact, but can lean one way or the other. There is also weak and strong agnostic beliefs, soft being god is not known but is possible and strong is unknown and can never be known. Of course there is limited and unlimited agnostic beliefs where limited means god can be partially known while unlimited means god is completely unknowable, but these are the ability to know.

But there are more types, not just those. Agnostic Pantheist seems to be a thing even though I don't think they are compatible. If you read on what a pantheist is you MIGHT understand why I am not sure on that.

Agnostic is not a single definition as I have said before, nobody can really make a claim one way or the other. You can literally be stuck in the middle and not be sure either way, in a sense not be a theist or atheist yet as those two would imply you have made up your mind to lean in that direction. No matter how many times you try to paint me as an atheist, I am not nor am I a theist. I am sure I will get to one side when all is said and done, just not right now. I am comfortable where I am, which is why I use that word.

Who am I kidding, you won't even try to grasp that. No honest debate with you! You will most likely brush this off and laugh or something. You haven't been listening this whole time, like a brick wall.

@foxhound_fox said:

Because logic and philosophy are wrong and you are right.

Okay, you win.

lol. If you had used either you would know that there is more than one definition and like all things Agnosticism evolves too. Just like Christianity branched off into other forms but still shared core aspects. I'd bet those early Christians acted just as you, said theirs is right and everybody else is wrong. Wait, they still do. Whatever, start up when you want an honest debate.

your one or the other, you can tag on your position on Knowledge if you want, but the fact remains a person is either a theist or atheist.

I asked a question that required a yes or no answer, no a wall of text.

"You can literally be stuck in the middle and not be sure either way, in a sense not be a theist or atheist yet as those two would imply you have made up your mind to lean in that direction"

Theres no middle ground, if someone is unsure and haven't made their mind up, they dont actively believe, they lack belief, therefor they would be an Atheist.

"Who am I kidding, you won't even try to grasp that. No honest debate with you! You will most likely brush this off and laugh or something. You haven't been listening this whole time, like a brick wall."

Same can be said for you

@eliminatorpaige: same goes for you, you don't seem to grasp what atheism and theism is.

No, my post TOTALLY applies to theism.

As in...why are you posting such comments as "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"? That may be the god of CERTAIN RELIGIONS, but since when did people's BELIEFS about the nature of god have any bearing on the actual characteristics of god?

Do you think it's more likely that IF god exists, that all of the major religions are simply WRONG about his/her/its interest in humanity? Or do you think that IF god exists, that it's more likely that he/she/it doesn't have any more reason to save us than he has to save the rats?

You seem to be arguing from the point of view of if "god(s) of specific religions exist".Which seems kind of weird. Sort of like your comment about god PLACING people in random situations. Why even bring that up when one of the major points of my argument is that a theistic god easily could have not placed us in ANY situations (or even had a hand in creating us beyond simply creating the laws of nature).

I don't give a shit about the legitimacy of people's RELIGIONS. Which is what you seem to be concerned about: talking about people's RELIGIOUS views of god. I was talking about the EXISTENCE of god, and how IF he/she/it exists that it's kind of unreasonable to AUTOMATICALLY condemn him/her/it for not preventing us from suffering. The idea that a god would even personally care about us, or that a god does or SHOULD prevent US from suffering, just reeks of anthropomorphism to me. People call out how biased it is that god is typically portrayed as a bearded white dude, but I think there's an equal bias going on when nonbelievers say that a hypothetical god (lower case g) would have to be an asshole for not personally saving us from suffering. We're all totally fine with the suffering that got us here in the first place, and now we're pissed off that god doesn't play favorites with us and prevent US from suffering too?

@MrGeezer:

As in...why are you posting such comments as "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"? That may be the god of CERTAIN RELIGIONS, but since when did people's BELIEFS about the nature of god have any bearing on the actual characteristics of god?

Well that's what I'm talking about, as I said in my previous post: CERTAIN RELIGIONS.

People's beliefs have held bearing since god is defined and exists only through their faith. Even if it were somehow possible to prove god without our faith, we require faith to have god. God's existence is not something we can ever prove so we have to work from a standpoint of specific beliefs for any debate. I don't get why you're so opposed to arguing within a context of Christian doctrine, but whatever.

You seem to be arguing from the point of view of if "god(s) of specific religions exist".Which seems kind of weird. Sort of like your comment about god PLACING people in random situations. Why even bring that up when one of the major points of my argument is that a theistic god easily could have not placed us in ANY situations (or even had a hand in creating us beyond simply creating the laws of nature).

That's exactly the point of view I'm arguing from. Why is that so weird, people debate these things all the time.

I don't give a shit about the legitimacy of people's RELIGIONS. Which is what you seem to be concerned about: talking about people's RELIGIOUS views of god. I was talking about the EXISTENCE of god, and how IF he/she/it exists that it's kind of unreasonable to AUTOMATICALLY condemn him/her/it for not preventing us from suffering. The idea that a god would even personally care about us, or that a god does or SHOULD prevent US from suffering, just reeks of anthropomorphism to me. People call out how biased it is that god is typically portrayed as a bearded white dude, but I think there's an equal bias going on when nonbelievers say that a hypothetical god (lower case g) would have to be an asshole for not personally saving us from suffering. We're all totally fine with the suffering that got us here in the first place, and now we're pissed off that god doesn't play favorites with us and prevent US from suffering too?

I only care about people's religious views insofar as they give me a grounding to present an argument. What the hell else am I supposed to discuss to further my points?? I have to adhere to specific dogma to make an argument rebutting it. And if you're not talking about people's views of god but solely on the basis of whether god exists or not, then on what grounds can you then state it's unreasonable to automatically condemn him/her/it for anything? You know nothing about it to make such a judgement aside from saying it exists.

......and it reeks of anthropomorphism because it is anthropomorphic.

This thread gave me AIDS,male breast cancer,AND dementia.

@bardockdiaper: it's a thread that will always show it's face across online forums and be talked about

The discussion in this thread, ignoring my spat of about 3 pages about agnosticism had been pretty good, these type of threads can be worse.

@thehig1: IT GAVE ME MALE BREAST CANCER.

@bardockdiaper: well best of luck with that

yes, i believe in god. The chinese believe mainly in Goddess of mercy, guan shi yin and offerings to the dead in lunar 7th month.

I'm not looking for a debate

*gets debate for 17 days and counting*. Agenda...success.

Except that the entire premise of what I was saying was that if god is real then he/she/it is real independently of people's beliefs about god. If it were to be established tomorrow that god actually exists, none of the religions matter.

You know what a hypothetical scenario is, right? In the hypothetical scenario of god being real, people's suffering doesn't say ANYTHING about whether or not god is a just god, since the entire notion that he/she/it SHOULD prevent suffering comes entirely from religions that made up attributes about god in the absence of actual evidence. That'd be condemning him for not living up to a stupid stereotype.

Or for another comparison, imagine some guy who's never met a real chinese dude, and who learned from the movies that chinese dudes teach you kung-fu. So then he meets the chinese guy and asks for kung-fu lessons, to which the chinese guy obviously says no. So now the first guy thinks that the chinese guy is a total dick for not acting like the fictional image of "chinese guy" that he created in his own mind.

You're going off topic, dude. I wasn't talking about god(s) of specific religions, I was talking about god(s). If you're not even discussing the same thing as me, then why did you even bother replying to my posts?

And yes, one CAN automatically condemn a god for not knowing anything other than that god exists. Same way that one can condemn a Mexican or a black guy without knowing anything other than that he exists. But for humans, we kind of set that as being UNREASONABLE. "Well, the books I've read say this and that about the blacks". And then judging the first REAL black person we meet based on how well he conforms to the description of black guys that was made by a guy who never met a black dude. Since when does ignorance/fantasy serve as a (reasonable) substitute for facts?

Yes, I'm aware that people can and do make UNREASONABLE judgements all the time. What I'm saying is that if ANYONE is willing to accept that religions are bullshit and then judge a hypothetical god based in his/her/its own merits rather than on what ignorant people think god should be like, then it should be atheists. Absent religious notions of what god is supposed to do for us, what logical reason is there for god to care about us one bit? I still haven't heard any answers that amount to anything other than, "well, the religions say he does, so he's an asshole if he doesn't."

Yes I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.

@MrGeezer: look, I'm not interested in deconstructing your rants defining semantics of an argument. Next time do me the courtesy of telling me you hold no interest in partaking in a debate within the realms of which I defined it to spare me the effort. This is a forum, I'm am not aware you are opposed to delving into specificity of a topic (especially one so broad as the topic of God) until you inform me of such. But at least TELL me from the get-go so I don't waste my (and your) time.

No. I was raised a Christian, but only ever 'believed' because I could see my family and community around me believed and they must feel something, they must have some reason to believe that wasn't unlocked to me. It never came to me, even though I tried. The world makes so much more sense to me now.

The answer is yes, but as another very advance civilization. The Book of Revelation's "city of God" is effectively a very large city size starship i.e. shaped like Cube. LOL. Which reminds me of oversize Borg Cube but with very smooth semi-transparent metallic surfaces.

Forging metallic atoms into transparent diamond formation is very hard to do and we can do it with Aluminium in small qualities.

Forging metallic atoms such as Titanium or Platinum into transparent diamond formation is impossible with our current technology.

In the distant future, humans would have their own starships and Genesis terraformer device, hence full filling Gen 1:26.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke.

I support the views towards secularism.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Oh, YOU defined the parameters of the discussion? If I recall, YOU were replying to ME.

Regardless, I absolutely told you from the get go. At no point did I apply my arguments to a god of a specific religion, I was very deliberate in referring only to a hypothetical real god.

Now, IF you're talking about the SPECIFIC gods of SPECIFIC religions, then that is fine and well. But again, that just really has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm not saying that you're wrong, you're just talking about something else entirely so your comments really have nothing to do with what I was saying.

But if it makes you happy, I'll agree. Yes, if we go with specific religions' description of god and assume that he somehow actually intervenes in our affairs (as opposed to simply letting nature run its course), then it is absolutely valid to call him an asshole for helping an actor win an Oscar while letting kids starve in some third world shithole. Not quite sure why we'd go with that if we're atheists who accept that such a god doesn't exist (and by extension, that any existing god wouldn't be subject to criticism due to religious misconceptions). But yes, IF that's what we're talking about in a topic about the mere EXISTENCE of hypothetical real god, then you'd be correct.

Explain to me why in the hell YOU initially responded to this picture?

Are you unaware that's targeting Christianity? That image is a direct challenge to theism. Then I respond to you from a conversation that YOU initiated to another based on it (believing that's what you were at least open to), and you go off on a tirade accusing me of responding to you about something entirely unrelated. If you never were interested or open to discussing a theistic god or "people's RELIGIOUS beliefs", then why the **** did you even address those things by responding to that picture in the first place?!

So no, I think YOU were in a defined debate even before I interjected and needed to redefine to you what you had initially addressed after you told me I was way off topic. Mjorh also mentioned things to you such as "Satan", "Evil", and "Omnipotent", terminology used in context of theism and something you full well knew at the time unless you are obtuse or ignorant.

Again, if you weren't interested, then tell me. But don't rant at me and blame me for thinking you'd be open to such a discussion when it's precisely over what you opened your argument with to another poster!

"I'm not looking for a debate, really. Just a yes or no, or a maybe."

How's that working out for you?

In any case, and staying on-topic, I don't really care whether (a) god(s) exist(s)...it just has no bearing in my life whatsoever.

I tend to believe that there is one, but I don't revolve my life around there being one.

Yep

I'd say fairly well. Yes, no, or maybe can be expressed without actually using any of the terms...

Even when one thinks they are debating.