AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Consider the possibility?

81 11147
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Decided to make this it's own thread.

Question for theists.
Would you even be willing to consider the possibility that there was no God out there, and all the things you attribute to God just stem from your own imagination/ignorance?
If not then why wouldn't you?

For those who would, what (if anything) do you think would change in your life if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a being didn't exist?
How would your behavior change?
Would you strive to do more in the here and now?
Where would you seek answers to your questions?

Just to be fair, atheists.
Same question but reversed, would you be willing to consider that there was a God out there, and you just never recognized the signs?
Again, if not then why?

The above part could be any deity, but for this part I will use the Abrahamic God for the hypothetical.
How would things change for you if such a being was proven to exist, if anything?
Would you behave any differently then you already do?
How would it effect you emotionally?
Would you be fearful and try and get back on his good side, or would you rebel against him even if it did likely mean eternal suffering?

  • 81 Replies
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Strop, I ask you a question, and you alone, is there a name for people who are actually confused? My friend asked me this the other day and I didn't know what to say to him and Google is useless.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

Well. There are different types of agnostics. There are those who have made the position that they cannot know if there is a deity (or many) or not. This would be a commitment to remain uncommitted in a way.

Then there are the agnostics who simply haven't made up their minds. Your friend might be thinking of that.

driejen
offline
driejen
486 posts
Nomad

Well you might say that atheism is a commitment because many atheists go by the thought; "if there is a possibility of something else doing it instead of God, God doesn't exist". While I think, "There is more evidence for X therefore X is true".

I have found some arguments on youtube where facts were laid out, which implied that evolution is way too unlikely to happen since almost all mutations are deleterious. I figured that this statement was completely false by doing research, yet I found atheists who were basically saying, "I'm retarded so I can't see past your lies, however, it is hypothetically possible for a man to win the lottery 1 billion times in a row so thats what happened."(not a direct quote). Basically I find those atheists disgusting to the core since they base their beliefs on commitment, which is not what I am an atheist for.

melimouse
offline
melimouse
110 posts
Shepherd

I agree with Strop, Atheism is the belief that there is no God, if you do not know, then you are an Agnostic.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

Commitment is such a scary word. Perhaps that's why people make commitments without realising it!

Let's see here:

While I think, "There is more evidence for X...


This is your premise.

...therefore X is true".


And in your conclusion, lies the moment of commitment!

implied that evolution is way too unlikely to happen since almost all mutations are deleterious


Fun fact: Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies miscarry (the fetus spontaneously aborts), the vast majorities of these being undetected save for maybe one or two missed periods. The reason for this is because of some "deletrious genetic mutation" which turned out to be non-viable. As you can see, we're observing the fact even today.
driejen
offline
driejen
486 posts
Nomad

And I'm an atheist because if you are agnostic, could I not say to you, consider the possibility that;
-there is a dragon following me which you cannot sense at all
-I gave birth to your parents
-The entire nightsky is a hologram
-When you are asleep, you are awake in a different dimension
-Your nervous system reacts as an aftereffect of controlling your muscles using telekineses
-A giant flying omnipotent eyeball has tendrils that attach to every person in the world, giving them all illussions which simulate a different world like the matrix
-insert other ridiculously farfetched theories here

driejen
offline
driejen
486 posts
Nomad

"Fun fact: Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies miscarry (the fetus spontaneously aborts), the vast majorities of these being undetected save for maybe one or two missed periods. The reason for this is because of some "deletrious genetic mutation" which turned out to be non-viable. As you can see, we're observing the fact even today."

and I've read somewhere that the average person has hundreds of insignificant mutations yet they are alive and fuly functional. The video I saw was also asserting that mutations in themselves are beneficial or (most likely) deleterious. But this is misinformation since most mutations are not deleterious and generations do make it past the deleterious mutations by means of multiple conceptions, and mutations have to accumulate to cause polymorphism, and THIS has enough effect to have an give either advantage or disadvantage. My point was, despite this, some people would instantly jump to the conclusion that no matter how extremely unlikely, it must have happened by chance, instead of doing their own research.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

lol

-insert other ridiculously farfetched theories here


An agnostic person doesn't need to avoid making any commitments whatsoever! That's called hardline skepticism.

As a scientist I must employ a degree of skepticism at all times but hey, as a scientist I also believe that models of thought are only as good as they are useful. On the flip side, I always keep tabs on what I have chosen to believe or assume, as sometimes it may warrant reassessment.
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

But this is misinformation since most mutations are not deleterious and generations do make it past the deleterious mutations by means of multiple conceptions, and mutations have to accumulate to cause polymorphism, and THIS has enough effect to have an give either advantage or disadvantage.


I agree that discussing this further would be going off-topic, but nonetheless for the sake of completeness, I'd just like to flag to the general readership that the principles of genetics are a little more detailed than this and further discussion elsewhere may prove beneficial.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Yes it does. An atheist believes that there is no god. This is a negative ontological commitment.


Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. It doesn't necessitate that you take a positive assertion that there is no God.

again breaking down the word atheist.

a- prefix; meaning without or not
theist n/adj.; belief in a god or gods

So a+theist= without belief in a god or gods

gnostic n/adj.; possessing spiritual knowledge

So a+gnostic= not possessing spiritual knowledge

How does agnostic equate to a middle ground between believing and not believing?
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

Sorry Mage, you've misinterpreted the aetiology slightly, and it is crucial to get this straight.

I hate to reference dictionary.com but as an online source I can place in a post, here it is.

Theist is derived from Ancient Greek theos meaning God. Atheist is derived from the Ancient Greek atheos which actually means without God, therefore atheist actually means the doctrine that God does not exist.

This is a particularly important distinction in this day of religious politics.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

How does agnostic equate to a middle ground between believing and not believing?


In two ways:

1) "I haven't decided to believe or not to believe yet because I am not equipped to do so."
2) "I have decided that I will not make a decision to believe or not believe."

This of course asserts that not every element is covered by the dichotomy "believing" and "not believing", which, in this case, is something I believe is important.
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

therefore atheist actually means the doctrine that God does not exist


Excuse me, atheist here should be Atheism, an Atheist being a person who follows Atheism.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I hate to reference dictionary.com but as an online source I can place in a post, here it is.


Be very careful with looking up the definition.

Misrepresenting Atheism

1) "I haven't decided to believe or not to believe yet because I am not equipped to do so."
2) "I have decided that I will not make a decision to believe or not believe."


This doesn't really make sense. It's like your saying the light bulb isn't turned on or off.

If your not claiming a belief in something then the default is a lack of belief.

As I pointed out agnostic deals with knowledge not belief. I've also shown that the difference between a gnostic and agnostic atheist.

What you see as atheist is just gnostic atheism, that claims definitively there is no god or gods.
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

Be very careful with looking up the definition.


And be very careful with your counter-sources.

What's a more authoritative source? One based on a dictionary in print, or an argument provided in a Youtube link? Since you have taken the trouble to link me to this video and I actually have the time to do this, I will address it point for point:

* "Denying the existence of God" does not presuppose the existence of God.
* This guy, like you, still has the aetiology wrong. I've already explained the origins of the word, and that's a matter of historical scholarship.
* I conclude, from the themes of this video, that this person is actually complaining about the allegedly negative connotations that 'atheists' are portrayed with in the light of these definitions, an issue mainly relevant to the ongoing politics surrounding the atheist movement and how it relates to its detractors.
* The biggest irony here is that the title is "misrepresenting Atheism", as if there is some kind of longstanding injustice afoot. But the entire video consists of the author slagging off every single source he finds issue with. I would not mind this if he acknowledged the nature of his agenda... but I did not encounter that from him, nor have I encountered it from you.

I stand by the definition I use and resist any attempts to undermine it with messages that I assert are the result of recent political furore, because as your posts demonstrate, the framework of your concepts is incomplete.

As I pointed out agnostic deals with knowledge not belief


Knowledge pertains to belief as the problem of "justified belief". Agnostic here means "I do not/cannot believe or disbelieve because I do not/cannot know."

This doesn't really make sense. It's like your saying the light bulb isn't turned on or off.


For the second (or third) time, don't falsely dichotomise.

* There is a god/there are gods.
* I don't know whether there is a god or gods because I haven't reached a conclusion on this yet.
* I refuse to form a conclusion as to whether there is a god or gods because we cannot know.
* There is no god.

Surely this makes it somewhat clearer?
Showing 31-45 of 81