Let's all have a big fight over my mortal soul.

[Grantywanty]

That. Is. My. Intent.

I find both the theist and athiest positions absurd.

Someone prove me wrong.

If the theists are right, it does not necessarily follow that they can prove it to you. Belief should be based on experience, at least in part, despite whatever the monotheists say about faith.

Just keep in mind that your not having had certain experiences, interest, openness, acceptance or, for example, ability to stop the little verbal machine in your mind - has given you a certain way of perceiving things. That when theists come to you - with more words to add to all those running around in your brain - and this does not convince you is proof of nothing. It might indicate how clever you or they are or aren't with words and a lot of abstract mulling, but that has very little to do with how we learn things, especially fundamental things or things that challenge fundamentally how we experience and think.

 

[Grantywanty]

And that applies to athiests also. Just because the athiests cannot convince you proves very little about the truth of their position.

 

[Spud Emperor]

Yeah!
Redarmy11, you're a cheeky bastard and I for one adore you for that.
You should play poker BTW ( I know you already do).

I think you should lean to the "dark side" of the fence and hope like Hell ( whoops, unintentional reference slipping out as part of an atheists natural turn of phrase) that you get sucked down into the gloomy "eternal hellfire" defying realm.
Come play with us, no-one will guilt you out for swearing, letting fly with the odd politically incorrect statement( forgiveness is ours, we fear not the wrath of our "creator", we love you for having the life that is yours to live, LIVE!), yes folks, as an atheist it is unsaid that every moment is savoured for the realtime occurrence that it is, no second chances, no second takes, no rewind and start the B grade movie in the soft lens vision of the glowing afterlife.
Come on Redarmy, throw caution to the wind, live like there's no tomorrow, because there isn't. You die, that's it, you lived. You will live on in the memory of people who knew you and loved you, not as a soul, an angel or a prisoner of evil incarnate. That is SO preposterous, so unbelievable that any intelligent person with real cognitive and rational thoughts or abilities will denounce it as utter tripe( and rest easy in the comfortable knowledge that any Creator of the Universe and all who dwell within it as beings created in "his" image will have no spurious intentions for his sons and daughters, he would in fact regard his own atheist offspring as crazy little rebel rousters who showed some spunk and got a bit confused along the way.)

Really, Redarmy11, you see at having three choices, Stay agnostic, become a Christian( which, if everyone on sciforums who truly "believes" is anything to go by, sell your sense of humour to the...the...De..., no, not the devil, beesibub or Satan, but to the big chappie himself! Aaaarrrggghhh!!!! I implore you redarmy, don't do it, humour makes the world go around and your humour is sacred( I mean this wholeheartedly, Redarmy is one humourously gifted dude...rare humour welldone is like a stake in the heart of the Theist, bleeding and bloody. Well done humour is rare and Redarmy's humour is like a steak on the plate of the atheist, warm, moist and tasting of life!

Vital One nearly had it with the good samaritan reference, The priest was pathetic, the samaritan was beyond reproach, he cared and that was what mattered.

The whole thing about knowing God, feeling God, loving God and having God love you and living all the light, the way, the love, the good, the sweet, the lovely, the rainbows, puppydogs and ....stuff, is that it's only half the story.

Oh yeah! the pain, the suffering, the injustice etc.. and on (we all know that story)they are all part of living too and no amount of pretending( wanting to believe in the light, the way, the love and eternal sunshine and having God shining through you you like a prism) will actually spare you from the pain.
So Redarmy, believe as you do in the good, the bad and the ugly and have the strength to embrace it all as the bittersweet life it is.
Retain your wonderful cynicism, your wicked tangential slant on life.
There is no God. We are here. We can't explain why, we really don't need to. But please don't sell out to the " it's all too hard, scary, unexplainable etc." Stick with the "science" or not but don't say " it's nice and easy to believe in a magnanimous God"

And again, there lies the crux of the matter, if there's a God, He is magnanimous and a few swear words and having a healthy inquisitive and questioning mind will certainly not condemn you to an afterlife of pain.

 

[redarmy11]

If the theists are right, it does not necessarily follow that they can prove it to you. Belief should be based on experience, at least in part, despite whatever the monotheists say about faith.

Just keep in mind that your not having had certain experiences, interest, openness, acceptance or, for example, ability to stop the little verbal machine in your mind - has given you a certain way of perceiving things. That when theists come to you - with more words to add to all those running around in your brain - and this does not convince you is proof of nothing. It might indicate how clever you or they are or aren't with words and a lot of abstract mulling, but that has very little to do with how we learn things, especially fundamental things or things that challenge fundamentally how we experience and think.

And that applies to athiests also. Just because the athiests cannot convince you proves very little about the truth of their position.

I completely agree, which is why I think all the 'debates' that go on in this particular forum are so pointless and frustrating. A babble of competing realities. If the Truth isn't accessible to anyone outside your own head what value does it have?

Is lightgigantic right when he says that atheists just don't have the necessary tools to investigate God?
Is God any more or less real than gravity?

You make cryptic reference to "how we learn things" but don't explain the process. What is it, exactly, and how might I apply it to the question at hand? When I'm done will I finally be with (or without) God?

Questions, questions..

 

[greenberg]

I completely agree, which is why I think all the 'debates' that go on in this particular forum are so pointless and frustrating. A babble of competing realities.

Discussing and debating can help to clarify things for oneself, often in indirect ways.

 

[Grantywanty]

I completely agree, which is why I think all the 'debates' that go on in this particular forum are so pointless and frustrating. A babble of competing realities.

I agree, in general. I think you can point out flaws in reasoning. Show an athiest or a theist that their proof was not a proof. You can also point out to athiests that they tend to focus their skepticism on certain things and not others and ask for some introspection about why this might be. But overall most of that seems pointless to me also. Unless there is an interest in exploring something - not just words about something and 'logic' about something - its all head and abstraction. No meat in the soup, or vegetables for that matter.

If the Truth isn't accessible to anyone outside your own head what value does it have?

Well, if it is true that there is a God (or that you can communicate with one) this certainly could have value even if you can't prove this to someone else. There are mundane examples of such things. If your grandfather had a stroke and hates everyone but you and pretends to not be able to speak except around you, well, you can still have valuable conversations with the guy even if no one believes you've had them.

Is lightgigantic right when he says that atheists just don't have the necessary tools to investigate God?
Is God any more or less real than gravity?

I think a lot of athiests have their own emotional reasons for not opening to the possibility. Not that I can prove this.

You make cryptic reference to "how we learn things" but don't explain the process. What is it, exactly, and how might I apply it to the question at hand?

'Cryptic' makes it sound exotic. I think it was just imcomplete. We learn best, I think, via experience and interaction. Most religions offer methods to get closer to God or whatever it is they try to get closer to. You could try some of these. I think most religions are pretty clear that this is not primarily an intellectual process. Nor is learning to be a good carpenter. Or really anything. We generally learn by doing. So if you are actually curious or have a desire to know you could in fact follow the doing and skip all the chitchat. It would be a shame if you became a monothieist, but I am willing to wager against that possiblity.

When I'm done will I finally be with (or without) God?

Oh, go find out yourself.

You're like a kid sitting in the house with his arms crossed asking his parents if he will make any friends if he goes to the playground.

 

[greenberg]

We learn best, I think, via experience and interaction. Most religions offer methods to get closer to God or whatever it is they try to get closer to. You could try some of these. I think most religions are pretty clear that this is not primarily an intellectual process. Nor is learning to be a good carpenter. Or really anything. We generally learn by doing. So if you are actually curious or have a desire to know you could in fact follow the doing and skip all the chitchat.

Well, that's just it - If something is learned, then it's not "who you really are"; if it's learned, it's just something that has been acquired, it's not genuinely yours ("you" meant generally).

And while I don't see a problem with this in everyday terms, I find it very problematic when it comes to things like believing in God.

If I learn to believe in God, my first association to this is that I've basically made it up, trained myself into believing in God - while there might not be any God in the first place. And it's an association that I see no alternative to.

 

[Enmos]

Atheists don't make a habit of converting others. Work it out yourself

 

[maxg]

I'm an agnostic as well as a recovering alcoholic/drug addict (20 years without a drink/drug) who got sober in AA. So I had regular exposure to people telling me I should believe in a higher power and I tried sincerely to do so for a couple years (praying on a regular basis, reading a variety of religous texts, etc.). I am enough of a pragmatist to see that believing in a religion (doesn't seem to matter which one) helps people stay sober (and helps them in other ways) but am also enough of a rationalist to realize this is not support for the validity of any one religous tradition. I don't hate religion--it can accomplish good things as well as bad-- but do dislike fundamentalism/fanaticism. I don't dislike atheism either though and have met some very moral and happy atheists.

I do, however, think it's important to believe in the value of something other than myself--for me that has become the human race in general so I'd say I'm a humanist.

 

[Grantywanty]

Well, that's just it - If something is learned, then it's not "who you really are"; if it's learned, it's just something that has been acquired, it's not genuinely yours ("you" meant generally).

And while I don't see a problem with this in everyday terms, I find it very problematic when it comes to things like believing in God.

If I learn to believe in God, my first association to this is that I've basically made it up, trained myself into believing in God - while there might not be any God in the first place. And it's an association that I see no alternative to.

I still think this is backwards. Why not explore what you want to explore and see what happens? It's a little like Zeno deciding not to go for a walk because of his paradox. Who knows what you will learn?

Also, given your fears about learning, you are already in that position. Perhaps perceiving God or gods or Nirvana is what you have been trained out of noticing.

You are not in a pristine place - which I know you know but perhaps haven't quite thought of it in this way. Even agnosticism is a very solid, absolute set of beliefs about epistomology, perception, thought, and so on. It is a very strong position - as they all are. It is not quasi. It has consequences and for all you know, according to your own statements, your agnosticism is simply something you have been trained to think is yours.

I realize that you have moved away or are in a questioning relationship with a Christian background, but we are trained by much more than our parents.

 

[Grantywanty]

Atheists don't make a habit of converting others. Work it out yourself

They don't?
That is not my experience. And mocking and shaming and belittling are a form of training.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Theists, atheists: you are all mad.

As I see it, there is no more compelling evidence for not believing in God than there is for believing.

In fact, I see no compelling reasons at all for adopting either stance.
What do I mean by compelling? Well, lets say strong enough evidence to convince a neutral like me.

excuse me if this has already been asked. But being that you think there's no compelling reasons at all for adopting either stance, it seem you think it is unreasonable to believe in a god without evidence.

The only rational position, it seems to me, is to suspend judgement until such evidence emerges as to put the existence or non-existence of God (or gods) beyond any reasonable doubt.

agreed, however considering there is no hard evidence, and you think it's unreasonable, why are you agnostic, I know you say, there’s no compelling evidence either way, but what evidence would you need, to convince you of nonexistence.

Certainly one can say that, given the lack of compelling evidence in favour, it's reasonable to infer that gods probably don't exist. But that still leaves room for doubt, no matter how small.

yes the same doubt that elves can exist, or the same doubt that the lesser spotted Nupin bird from the planet Zogalog can exist.

Can we fill that gap with anything other than faith, intuition, personal belief?

no, faith and personal belief, fit that gap perfectly. But not intuition, as that doesn't indicate nonexistent supernatural elements, intuition is not fantasizing, intuition is using wisdom learnt, to help come to a logical conclusion.

Doesn't that small element of doubt compel you to join me on the fence, awaiting further evidence, open to the possibility that everything you know is wrong?

no, unless of course you wish to leave the door open for anything that can possibly be imagined. All have the same potential as Gods, Elves, or Nupin birds.

It's the 'strong' atheists who interest me most in all of this: those who are 100% certain that no Gods exist. Identify yourselves, please, and justify your position.

they interest me too, as there are no absolutes, however it isn't an wholly unreasonable stance considering the supreme lack of evidence for Gods, Elves, and Nupin birds from the planet Zogalog.

 

[Sarkus]

Hi,

I'm redarmy11 and I'm a cowardly, fence-sitting agnostic. I is feeling left out.

Theists: show me the Light and the Way.
Atheists: convert me to the Dark Side.

Go.

P. S. You are all mad.

Agnostics who don't believe in a god ARE atheist - by definition.

In the absence of evidence, the only rational position is one of agnostic atheism.

Of course, this is dependent upon what you consider evidence.

But until I see any, feel any, hear, taste any etc... I retain rationality on my side as I head into battle, sitting astride my trusty War-cat, over-sized sword/lightning-conductor in hand, trusty comedic side-kick to one side and an array of glittering allies to suit all tastes.

BY THE POWER OF SARCASM....!!

 

[Enmos]

They don't?
That is not my experience. And mocking and shaming and belittling are a form of training.

No, they don't. Not a single one I know in real life anyway, and I know a lot of them.
Atheists usually have no opinion on theists until you make them think about it. And even then most of them have no problem with religious people whatsoever, let alone wanting to convert them.
I belief atheists that are out to 'convert' theists are the equivalent of religious extremists or football hooligans for that matter. I think you get the idea

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I agree with this. The distinction seems really fuzzy to me. Would someone like to clarify?

Sure. The current definition of an Agnostic is a "person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable". In other words, the agnostic position goes beyond "I don't know" and positively claims "Nobody can ever know". Agnostics also tend to value other people's feelings to the point that they will not scrutinize their beliefs and will go out of their way to appease such people.

A weak Atheist on the other hand holds no such "unknowable", "anti-scrutiny", and "appeasing" positions. Normally the weak Atheist is all about evidence.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

There's no such thing as a weak atheist, weak atheists are really just agnostics they just want to claim atheism

As you can see from my post above, this is not the case.

 

[greenberg]

I still think this is backwards. Why not explore what you want to explore and see what happens?

And if it should be wrong, and God will smite me, either now or some time later? I seem to be unable to shake that fear.

I'm actually on mandatory rest now from my sports exercises, because I overdid it and my legs hurt badly. For the recent couple of months, I was often overwhelmed by thoughts of God, tensed up a lot, and it affected my exercising, especially the running. Running while psychologically tense is very bad for muscles, joints and bones, at least for me.
Now, I'm not saying that this is God smiting me. But I'm saying that the situation is serious.

It has consequences and for all you know, according to your own statements, your agnosticism is simply something you have been trained to think is yours.

I wouldn't say I think it is mine. What I consider as mine is my not having a way to leave agnosticism behind.

I realize that you have moved away or are in a questioning relationship with a Christian background, but we are trained by much more than our parents.

Of course, the conditioning is very complex.

 

[greenberg]

... who got sober in AA. So I had regular exposure to people telling me I should believe in a higher power and I tried sincerely to do so for a couple years (praying on a regular basis, reading a variety of religous texts, etc.).

I was briefly involved with a 12-step program, but gave it up because it was too much like literally banging my head up against a wall.
Everytime I prayed to that "Higher Power" I couldn't shake the feeling that it's all just my imagination, or talking to a deaf wall.

I don't understand how anyone can recover while relying on a "Higher Power". For me, it only made things worse.

 

[Orleander]

seriously, do we really want his soul? I say let the theists have it.

 

[Sarkus]

Sure. The current definition of an Agnostic is a "person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable". In other words, the agnostic position goes beyond "I don't know" and positively claims "Nobody can ever know". Agnostics also tend to value other people's feelings to the point that they will not scrutinize their beliefs and will go out of their way to appease such people.

A weak Atheist on the other hand holds no such "unknowable", "anti-scrutiny", and "appeasing" positions. Normally the weak Atheist is all about evidence.

I don't agree.
I agree with the Agnostic element - to a degree - but an agnostic can merely be one who personally doesn't have the evidence on which to make a judgement.

And a weak atheist is merely one who neither believes in the existence of god, nor disbelieves in it either.

I, like many others here, am generally an agnostic atheist (weak).
I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God, precisely because I do not think anyone can ever know what is beyond the realms of evidence / our universe - and I personally do not have evidence to the contrary.