Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

"you can not disprove it therefor I believe it"

That is obviously not what I said. Stop acting as if you possess the ultimate knowledge and read my post. What I said is that we have no definite proof for either the one (god in a way exists) or the other (god doesn't exist) (while we DO have proof that many writings are false.) Therefore, we cannot disprove anything. The reason I am open-minded towards religion is exactly my own belief which does not come from logic. It is a deeper belief (I am an agnosticist).

We totally CAN find the answer by ourself,and we did it. In your case you suffer from daddy-complex for lack of self-confidence, so you made up an imaginary friend who "always watches and protects you".

Is that what you got? We did it? Then what is the answer to those great questions? What is the meaning of life? Where does our soul go when we die? Does god exist? If you think you've found the answer then think again.

Religion is connected to those questions, like it or not (trust me I don't like what the religions say about these matters either). But you can't treat such matters like the final episode of "Lost".

Life and the existence of the universe are usually the reasons people consider the existence of a creator. For all the scientific theories, nothing has been proven yet. In fact, every attempt to confirm that abiogenesis is even possible has failed to produce more than a few amino acids (a small fraction of the hundreds that would have to spontaneously form and then combine to create even the simplest cell) making it even harder to accept the current "scientific" explanation for the origin of life. And the theories on how the big bang occurred are often so laughably vague and self-contradictory that you'd think they were meant to be a parody of all the ways atheists mock religion.

The only people who see religion that way are fools on the internet like you. Arm-chair experts that abandoned religion, usually because of a bad experience with a specific individual or church, and spend their days online calling everyone with any kind of faith an ignorant stupid child clinging to imaginary friends. People who post praises to the FSM and laugh having forgotten what the joke ever really was. People who cling to evolution as absolute fact when, in my experience, their understanding of evolutionary theory is limited to quotes from Dawkins and Krauss with a few memorable phrases from Darwin thrown in. Everyone else, especially scientists, recognizes religion for what it is, a collection of people with similar beliefs.

Thanks a lot Ishtaron. My point exactly.

I happen to believe it to be something like that. It is a bit of a cycle: We have no definite proof about the existence of a god but we cannot find proof because of our limited abilities as human beings.

Life and the existence of the universe are usually the reasons people consider the existence of a creator. For all the scientific theories, nothing has been proven yet. In fact, every attempt to confirm that abiogenesis is even possible has failed to produce more than a few amino acids (a small fraction of the hundreds that would have to spontaneously form and then combine to create even the simplest cell) making it even harder to accept the current "scientific" explanation for the origin of life. And the theories on how the big bang occurred are often so laughably vague and self-contradictory that you'd think they were meant to be a parody of all the ways atheists mock religion.

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

Let's also not forget that organic molecules (simple for most, but more complex have been found) are commonplace in space.

As for your denigrating the big bang theory, I am no expert in this matter, but more informed people than both you and me together have researched the data and don't seem to come to the same conclusion as you do, so maybe it isn't that ridiculous after all...

BTW, Charles Darwin became a deist after writing The Origin of Species and giving up on his dream of becoming a Christian priest.

Einstein was a theist who fled to the U.S. in order to escape the Nazis' persecution of Jews.

Every notable name in the history of science prior to Hawking, at the very least, acknowledged the existence of a higher power.

Of course there really were many religious people, even among scientists. Let's not forget that the father of genetics is Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian friar. Still today there are religious people in the natural sciences, but that does not impede nor discredit their work. Evolution for example is truly both fact and theory, and is accepted by most natural scientists and even by a broad part of religious people. (Hasn't the pope recently said something about that?). And this is perfectly compatible with seeing religion as a "collection of people with similar beliefs".

The people who actually deal with the rest of the world generally aren't trying to create and army of mindless followers

Actually they do.
Take for example the most obvious example here: xianity: just on the first page of their booklet says the earth is flat, the earth is the first planetary object, there can be light without distinction from darkness, there can be night&day w/o a sun.
Then in the second chapter it says snakes eat dust and speak (human language).
Still in the first story speaks about a "garden2 which is guarded by a "cherub" and exists today still, but noone found it despite the "flaming sword" and the supposed "tree of life".
And this is just the first story's most obvious mistakes.

Anyone with the most miniscule intelligence must be brainwashed to follow such idiocity.

In fact, every attempt to confirm that abiogenesis is even possible has failed to produce more than a few amino acids

First, this is utter crap.
Second, no experiment has to create living organism from nonliving material. Merely drawing a reaction-link,and proving its steps are possible is enough.
Third: abiogenesis as we know it started with nukleons (RNA), not amino-acids. That was a later step.
Forth: the starting position is, that "we don't know", and not "I don't know therefor goddidit".

The only people who see religion that way are fools on the internet like you. Arm-chair experts that abandoned religion, usually because of a bad experience

Again utter crap. Primaly for noone borns religious. Secondary, for religion is proven bull****. It fails on "common sense" level, on the scientific level, and on the incosistency-level.

but simply the lack of observation of anything supernatural.

Lacking observation of supernatural is reason for not believing in supernatural. As said: the basic position is, nothing exists until we have a reason to accept it exist. Until then, we can't say it exist, and especially not build on its existance.

What is the meaning of life?

First: the starting position is AGAIN that "we don't know", and not "we don't know therefor goddidit".
Second: as far as it can be told, from an objective standpoint, life has no meaning.
Third: from personal view, life has the meaning what you give to it.
Gravity is not "just a theory". Accept it, or you'll crush yourself to death.

Where does our soul go when we die?

There is no soul. Your question has no meaning.

Does god exist?

Why "god"? Why not "godESS"? Why not "god(ess)S"? You question is biassed.
Second, we have no reason to believe it does.
Third: in case of most religion's gods we can disprove its existence. For the xian god just do the Mount Carmel Challenge (prayer contest to light an offering to your god. If the sacrifise does not light up just by praying, your god is declared false, all must abandon it, and the priesthood executed, just like it is described in 1Kings18).

[quote]"you can not disprove it therefor I believe it"

That is obviously not what I said. [/quote]

Actually it is absolutely what you said. I quote you:
"human mind in its curent state cannot process those great questions", like " Does god exist?", therefor "I believe there is a god", because "human mind in its curent state cannot process those great questions".

If you don't like being caught on bull****, than do not say bull****. Simple.

@HahiHa, Ishtaron challenged the theories about how and why the big bang happened, not the theory about it happening.

However in my opinion, science and religion are not incompatible.

@twillight2 . This is utterly ridiculous. It is like me telling you to learn to spell. You are only trying to insult me right now, not discuss about theism and atheism.

And stop swearing

"human mind in its curent state cannot process those great questions", like " Does god exist?", therefor "I believe there is a god", because "human mind in its curent state cannot process those great questions".

Those "therefor" and "because" right there are your additions and change the entire meaning of the sentence you've cramped up with my quotes. How many times do I have to say it? My belief that some kind of god exists has nothing to do with reason or any proof.

I do believe that the human mind cannot process these questions yet but that is NOT why I believe in some kind of god. There is NO specific reason why I believe in a form of god and you are free to tell me it is all crap and god doesn't exist. But as you said, we have no proof of either the one or the other.

"we don't know"

We totally CAN find the answer by ourself,and we did it

"we don't know therefor goddidit".

And by the way, the concept of religion has survived since the beginning of mankind's existence in some form of another. Something that has endured all these years and survived through purges, sacred wars and the criticism of so many great men to walk on Earth is not something you can so easilly dispel as total crap. You always can on a personal level (as do I) but the difference between me and you is that I have some doubts. I cannot easily dispel such a great concept and I deeply respect some religious men (like the current pope, Pope Francis) whereas you have it all already figure out in your head and look for someone to attack on the slightest provocation.

Ishtaron challenged the theories about how and why the big bang happened

Ishtaron did no such thing. Merely tried to insult the Big Bang Theory by namecalling.

And stop swearing

Those "therefor" and "because" right there are your additions

My belief that some kind of god exists has nothing to do with reason or any proof.

There is NO specific reason why I believe in a form of god

I never insulted you. I told you the facts you yourself said, but with simple words and straightforward way. If you find yourself insulted - then stop believing in thing that insult you!

You are a THEIST. You might be "agnostic", in the sense you are not exactly sure your god exists, but you are STILL A THEIST as you - despite your small doubts - still believe in a god.

And by the way, religion is dying out. Anyway, argument from authority (by age) is not acceptable. The flat-Earth thesis was around for milennias, and it turned out false. Should we still keep it? Not at all obviously. Because Gravity is Not Just a Theory.

the difference between me and you is that I have some doubts

PS: the only person here attacking anyone, is You. I simply state facts. Facts can not be treated as "attacking".

@twillight2 - I think you should take a break. I can confirm that you initially misread Doom's post. But at this point, you're being quite rude and abrasive. I'm also not sure you understand the terms on offer (e.g. theism, agnosticism, and theory). So let's take a break before things get more heated.

If you want to approach the argument from the line that all theistic belief is irrational, that would be fine and would be something fun to discuss. But i won't tolerate whatever this is that's going on.

I think Doombreed is the one who is rude. Why is he allowed to do so? Heck, why is he SUPPORTED TO DO SO?

Also, why am I not allowed to question Doombreed's personal belief?
Why would it be ok to talk instead in general?
Why is it not ok to point out nothing else than Doombreed says, and point out its weak points (its irrationality)?

By the way I clearly understand he terms listed, why Doombreed clearly intends to alter the terms.
For example: theist is someone who believes in a general diety, most of the time a creator-god - just like Doombreed does.
Agnosticism means "not knowing if there is any god", as it comes from "gnosis" = knowing, and a- = signs lack of the attached word.
While Doombreed says he is "agnostic", he clearly states the same time he is a believer, aka. a religious person (check the definition of theism).
Theory, in the sense of Scientific Theory means not "just an idea", but "the best explanation of the collected data, which from all possible explanation contains the least unbased statements".

Now as I clearly proved I know what I am talking about, and was harassed by a moderator without reason, I want an apology from Moegreche, because named moderator stepped beyond the moderating, and started favouritism.

@twillight2 that is not favouritism. When everyone acknowledges that you were getting rude, it is probably true. You weren't harassed by a moderator without a reason, he told you to take a break because you were posting in an offensive manner, not because he showed favouritism towards me.

I am tired of telling this to you, but I am not a religious person. Yes I believe there is some kind of god without a reason.

When everyone acknowledges that you were getting rude

First: it is not everyone, just you and Moegreche.

Second: it is clearly favouritism, as you definitely were rude above question, and while I might have been harsh, the least minimum is to warn you too, if I'd be warned at all (as I clearly not commited what i'm accused with).

He told me to break because he favours religious views, and is uncomfortable for someone pointing out (through your view) religious views in general is illogical nonsense.

And lastly, I'm tired to link you dictionaries, which classifies you as religious. You believe in a god, and that is the definition of a religious person (check the already provided link for all sake).

PPS: Yes, as you said you believe in a god w/o reason.
You also said you see no evidence either supporting or contradicting this belief.
You also said you accept reason and evidence, thus would stop believing in named god if evidence would emerge.

Derived from this it is unquestionable that you believe in your god not for supporting evidence exists, but because negative evidence does not.
What equals with the phrase "I don't know therefor goddidit".

I understand in your mind you might not recognised this, or by religious reason you deceive yourself even. But here is no mystery or being rude. That is what you say.

@twillight2 Calm down. You are being aggressive in the way you address people. You did misjudge both Doombreed and Moegreche. Take a moment to read everything again and reconsider.

I think Doombreed is the one who is rude. Why is he allowed to do so? Heck, why is he SUPPORTED TO DO SO?

You are being overly aggressive in your posting and attacking him personally. I don't see the same coming from him. But I'm certainly not supporting his stance or his argumentation.

Also, why am I not allowed to question Doombreed's personal belief?

There is addressing someone's position and there is addressing someone personally. Here's an example: Your position is idiotic vs. You're an idiot. See the difference?

By the way I clearly understand he terms listed, why Doombreed clearly intends to alter the terms.

By the way I clearly understand he terms listed, why Doombreed clearly intends to alter the terms.

You definitely don't. If it was clear that you understood the terminology, I wouldn't have suggested otherwise. But here is just one example, using the very definitions you so happily provided:

For example: theist is someone who believes in a general diety, most of the time a creator-god - just like Doombreed does.
Agnosticism means "not knowing if there is any god", as it comes from "gnosis" = knowing, and a- = signs lack of the attached word.

Doom says that he believes in a god but has many doubts. In other words, he doesn't know. So he's an agnostic theist. The two are compatible. And yet you say the following:

While Doombreed says he is "agnostic", he clearly states the same time he is a believer, aka. a religious person (check the definition of theism).

See the problem? Someone can have a belief that can fall short of knowledge.

Furthermore I don't favour religious views. I'm an atheist. I also agree that most theistic beliefs are irrational.
And just to make it clear, I'm not attacking or harassing you. But I won't abide by a user taking this kind of tone with me or especially with another user. My role as a moderator is to moderate and this is precisely what I'm doing. But this is not the place to talk about my moderating decisions. If you want to discuss this further, my profile is the best place for that.

I'm not going to say anything further on this matter on this forum. I suggest we refocus the discussion. And since the topic of agnostic theism came up, it reminds me of something I've been thinking about.

There's a position of agnostic theism. A belief in God, but an acknowledgement that there are certain aspects of God that are unknowable. Note that this is a much stronger stance than the person simply saying that they don't know - they're saying that it can't be known.

With that in mind, are there aspects of God that are unknowable? And if so, is this because of the limitation of our finite minds or because of the nature of God?

With that in mind, are there aspects of God that are unknowable? And if so, is this because of the limitation of our finite minds or because of the nature of God?

Personally it is my belief that both are true. The result being that comprehension of such aspects is beyond our reach.

With that in mind, are there aspects of God that are unknowable? And if so, is this because of the limitation of our finite minds or because of the nature of God?

Like Doombreed, I would say both are the reason that aspects of God are unknowable. God's nature is infinite, without the confines of form or any sort of limitation. As finite beings we are physically incapable of truly understanding infinity as anything other than an abstract concept. And as an infinite being God can behave and understand things in a way that are beyond our ability to recognize through the limits of perceptions and a lifespan of less than a century on average. I think this scene should help illustrate what I'm saying a little.

This all seems right. So what is it, exactly, that we can't know about God? I mean, we can say there are things we can't know about God's nature, but what are they? Perfection? Omnipotence? Omniscience? Or perhaps all of these - or something else?