Quote :

For me, agnostics seem to be taking the "easy way out" of forming a definite opinion. For me, the topic is a binary one. There either is a god (thus, you believe. Has nothing to do with religion though, as religions are merely different sets of rules for the same phenomenon) or there is none (making you an atheist). I personally don't see a possibility for an agnostic "well, there might be."

I'm agnostic for a number of reasons, allow me to explain some of them so that you understand why there is such a thing as agnosticism.

Christians believe in a giant santa claus in the sky, he's a benevolent god who kills them when they prey for medical cures (sorry, that's the scientific fact, you are less likely to survive an illness if you are aware of someone praying for you, seriously), he needs money and has a collection bowl like a vagabond, but is all powerful and all seeing.

Atheists believe that there is no God. Typically enforcing their beliefs with acceptance of various widely accepted 'probable' scientific theories.

I do not believe in the Christian, or any other, God. These are clearly bunk on the face of the evidence available and no rational person would believe in them. In this much I can agree with the atheist argument.

But I do not know if there is actually A God. Clearly not Yahweh/Jehova as the factual evidence of the bible you can only believe with double speak in denying the history behind the birth of the bible. But some other thing that Humans have not written a story for? Maybe.

However, I consider another question more important. Whilst the theists would suggest the most important is "Is there a God?", to me this question is really a moot point.

I ask instead, "Does it matter if there is a God?".

See I don't care about how the universe came into being, I really don't give a damn. I already know it came into being I really don't care how. I don't understand why answering that question is so important.

So I really don't give a damn if there is a God or not.

I'll tell you this much though - no Human ever had enough information available to make an educated assumption about why we are here, let alone know the truth, and no God ever spoke to a Human. To me, belief in theism or atheism is a pretty arrogant stand point as it elevates the importance of the Human race. Whilst we may well be capable of collapsing waveforms, we're not the centre of the universe, and the universe will carry on just fine after we're gone.

Quote from Crommi :

That sign on a bus is just like forum trolling, only there to annoy people (in this case religious ones). If someone wants to believe in god or eastern bunny, let him. It's pretty hypocritical to first complain about those religious people who show up on your door and try to convert you if you're doing exactly the same thing just in reverse.

Is it?
That sign on the bus was an answer to other signs on busses pointing to a web site promising hell and eternal damnation for those who do not believe in God.

Becky: Research on figuring out how universe began and what was before that is not so much trying to prove non-existance of any gods but to understand our world better. There's still so many questions without solid answer, like why is universe expanding at increasing rate when by all logic it should be slowing down due to gravitational pull.


TagForce: Seriously, that makes it even worse. Right thing to do would have been bring it up to city government and just request original (Jesus) message to be removed, instead of being childish and making a counter message. The way things seem to work nowdays, it should have been easy to do since if you're not promoting minority, you're racist...

Edit: Little clarification

Quote from GrIp DrIvEr :

Well as a Christian, that is a no. At first, he wouldn't be able to, then he would just make himself stong enough to pick it up no problem.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this - And I don't think you do either!

Quote from Crommi :

TagForce: Seriously, that makes it even worse. Right thing to do would have been bring it up to city government and just request original message to be removed. The way things seem to work nowdays, it should have been easy to do since if you're not promoting minority, you're racist...

Taking it down wouldn't of really done anything - but the flak that it got from Christians (who've been doing exactly the same thing for years!) was pretty funny.

The best one i've seen was a bishop saying that "athiesm, like bendy busses ..... are dangerous to the population at large" and that "people don't like being preached at"

Quote from Crommi :

There's still so many questions without solid answer, like why is universe expanding at increasing rate when by all logic it should be slowing down due to gravitational pull.

The question is.. what does the specimen in the petri dish really know about the guy behind the microscope? The fact is that while astronomy is advancing handsomely, much of the prevailing wisdom in the last 30 years, based on interstellar observations, has come into being by defeating equally convincing prevailing wisdoms, based on interstellar observation. The one constant in the universe that we can depend on is that we will continue to seek the truth because we know we haven't found it yet.

Quote from Crommi :

TagForce: Seriously, that makes it even worse. Right thing to do would have been bring it up to city government and just request original message to be removed.

That would be censorship, and shouldn't be encouraged. We have very few freedoms left, after the last 8 years of being hammered. Don't take the last remnants of free expression from us.

Quote from Crommi :

TagForce: Seriously, that makes it even worse. Right thing to do would have been bring it up to city government and just request original (Jesus) message to be removed, instead of being childish and making a counter message. The way things seem to work nowdays, it should have been easy to do since if you're not promoting minority, you're racist...

Ah, but no...
The message we're trying to get across with the ads is that we're fine with the religious ads, but we have exactly the same rights, so we can make an ad that promotes agnosticism (because of the word 'probably'). We even leave it up to the reader to make up their own minds about whether or not there is a God... Now religious ads are being planned that say "There definitely IS a God"... That's only after they tried to ban the atheist ads. Notice the difference in the tone of the ads... "Probably" versus "Definitely IS", no room for any free thinking within the church.

Quote from SamH :

That would be censorship, and shouldn't be encouraged. We have very few freedoms left, after the last 8 years of being hammered. Don't take the last remnants of free expression from us.

But isn't this pretty much propaganda?

Quote from SamH :

The question is.. what does the specimen in the petri dish really know about the guy behind the microscope? The fact is that while astronomy is advancing handsomely, much of the prevailing wisdom in the last 30 years, based on interstellar observations, has come into being by defeating equally convincing prevailing wisdoms, based on interstellar observation. The one constant in the universe that we can depend on is that we will continue to seek the truth because we know we haven't found it yet.

Bacteria won't probably think of anything about the guy because it is fairly simple lifeform, behavior is "coded" into DNA and it is not being capable of creative thinking.

I'm not really sure how the first question relates to rest, but theories will be proven right or wrong as out technology advances enough to test them properly. Easy example of this is telescopes, they're really being used to their full potential and new stars are discovered just from noticing one slightly brigther pixel on large image that hasn't been seen before. It will take years before you can take any better picture of it. That is still fairly simple compared to trying to figure out what gas clouds are made of based on their size, mass and how they interact to light.


Edit: As a sidenote, I'm suprised how polite the discussion has been so far.

Quote from Becky Rose :

I'm usually mistaken for atheist, but i'm not. I'm agnostic.

Worse however, I have a strong urge to destroy this thread on the grounds that it might be seen by young and impressionable children.

I dont smoke infront of kids, why should I let them breath in religion?

Sorry, but that really IS my belief.

umm.. sorry but im confused. How is it possible for you to be Agnostic yet so fervently anti religion? is it belief iteslf that you have a problem with or the institutions of religion ie the church etc?

I ask because to my mind having such an anti-religious stance, (which I've seen you take in other threads also), would lead me to believe you should consider yourself an Atheist rather than Agnostic.

No critisism intended, just curiosity.

As for me, subscibing to the general Humanist philosophy as I do, I am most certainly an Atheist.

Quote from gezmoor :

umm.. sorry but im confused. How is it possible for you to be Agnostic yet so fervently anti religion? is it belief iteslf that you have a problem with or the institutions of religion ie the church etc?

I am very much against organised religion, which I see as being little different to organised crime (they impose their own legal subset, are self appointed, demand respect and take your money even if you dont 'donate' (via tax exemption)).

I have no problem with people having faith, although I think making your mind up as to how the universe was created and following a legal sub-set of laws as a result with absolutely no evidence of anything is a very daft thing to do. So whilst I am not against faith, I am very much against specific faiths - specifically all of them.

Quote from The Moose :

Having blind faith in something that there is absolutely no evidence for is not "understanding" anything.

Very true, but many people find it "comforting".

For me it comes down to the argument as to whether religion, (and therefore belief in some "god"), is necessary to provide such comfort and/or moral guidelines etc. Some people obviously believe it is. I on the other hand, most certainly don't.

Posting from my phone, so no quoting now.

Great discussion, and I do think I understand the agnostics point, and in fact I think that wether I am agnostic or atheistic is rather a question of how you define "god". Is He a personified being with the ability of willfully shaping the universe, or does a blob of energy that somehow spawned the universe qualify as god?

Also, I don't really think that the watcher through the microscope metaphor is really on the point, as there is a huge difference between watching and modifying over creating life itself.

Lastly, a question that no religion can answer is: Who created the creator?

Quote from SamH :

One man's science is another man's religion. Anything that you believe, without seeking personal/individual proof, is expressly religious. We're all religious, to some extent or another.

What tickles me most is how so many people that think they're rejecting religion and choosing science instead, are placing exactly as much faith in unproven science as any religious person places in their faith. Everybody takes the majority of the things we're told to be true as truth.

The only major difference is that the religious believe the words of the preacher and the scientific take the word of the "scientist". Neither requires any less leap of faith.. we don't HAVE time in our lives to seek proof for everything scientific we believe in.

I love how the contemporary "scientific" thinkers scoff at religion. Arrogance much.

You have a point, at least to an extent. Whilst it is true that many laymen may well have put as much faith in science as they might have in religion there is at least, (to my mind at least), greater justification for doing so because of one irrefuteable difference between Science and Religion.

Science is inherently self critical, it is built in to the very foundation of Scientific principles to be self judgmental and to seek "truth" by way of observation, confirmation and peer review. Religion on the other hand is never anything but self justifying and is incapable of being self-critical and only ever seeks to strengthen it's own fundamental dogmas.

Of course there is much misunderstanding of what Science actually provides in terms of answers, (not to mention just plain bad Science), and so it's true that many people are guilty of effectively just transfering their "Faith" from Religion to Science. But that's hardly the fault of Science itself, more a failing of the proponents of Science to fully explain exactly how Science works.

Quote from Crommi :

But isn't this pretty much propaganda?

I don't see how it is, in a bad way. Any communication/expression of belief (including atheist expression of non-belief) is inherently propaganda in form. It's semantic.

Quote from Crommi :

Bacteria won't probably think of anything about the guy because it is fairly simple lifeform, behavior is "coded" into DNA and it is not being capable of creative thinking.

I think my analogy was lost. We live on a speck of stellar dust called Planet Earth, and we're attempting to assess the entire universe, which is a great big thing we can't fully get into view, and draw conclusions on what it all really is, how much of it there is, what's beyond it, what started it, when it got started, how long it will last, what will come after it and what came before it.

We will never be any more qualified to answer these questions than a microbiological speck in a petri dish will ever be able to diagnose the scientist's heart condition. We are incapable of comprehending the magnitude of the thing we exist in, and while I think it's worth contemplating, I don't think that we stand an icicle-in-hell's chance of getting the measure of it.

Instead, what we'll have is an eternally lengthening list of truths which have been proven untrue throughout history, headed up by the latest truth that will at some point in the not-too-distant future be proven to be untrue. So what is truth? What we think is truth now, what we will find to be true instead tomorrow, or is truth really something that we will always chase and never find?

Quote from SamH :

Instead, what we'll have is an eternally lengthening list of truths which have been proven untrue throughout history, headed up by the latest truth that will at some point in the not-too-distant future be proven to be untrue. So what is truth? What we think is truth now, what we will find to be true instead tomorrow, or is truth really something that we will always chase and never find?

You certainly got me confused, what do you mean by "truth"?
Having something proven more or less wrong ten years later does not mean that people were lying, it was just best possible explanation for the research data they were able to produce with their equipment and knowledge. It's just a matter of trying to get better understanding of things that are happening. If mankind didn't have the drive to learn more about the world around them, we would still be sitting in our caves scratching out balls.

I don't think we will even figure out everything there is to know. Heck, we haven't even learned all that much about what's happening on our own planet at the bottom of deepest seas. Then there's the massive timeframe we're talking about, our civilization makes for a barely noticable spot on a much larger timeline. For mankind, research and advancement is the key to survival, we need to develop means to inhabit other planets and leave Earth before we've depleted all our resources here or before Sun cools down.


Propaganda reference was maybe bit too extreme, but "..whoever believes me WILL live" doesn't sound like expression of one's belief.
For a person who does not believe in this particular god, what does it say about them...."they WILL not live"?
But just to make it clear, I don't approve that atheist's advertisement either.

You have to think of the context crommi.
There are lots and lots of religion propaganda. Everyday you see those things that want to make you go in church and believe in god...
The big difference is that religion propaganda makes them win money... Not atheist "propaganda".
In this context it's perfectly normal that some people (atheists) want to "counter" this propaganda by telling what a lot of people think...

Each day the number of atheists grows, and that's a good thing (thanks benny 16 )

Sorry again for my english (I should put it in my sig )

Quote from gezmoor :

Very true, but many people find it "comforting".

Religion is a crutch for the weak

I don't believe in a god in the sense that most organized beliefs do, ie. an all powerful being who actually gives a damn about us. I strongly dislike organized beliefs; I think they're one of the most dangerous "sects" around. Religion has been the cause for a lot of war and bloodshed throughout history. Mind you, I am in no way saying that those wars wouldn't have happened had there been no religion; it's probably just the nature of mankind.

I do believe in some kind of afterlife, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there needs to be a "god" of any kind for that to be possible.

If there is a god like the main organized religions claim, then he either doesn't give a fig about us, or he's one sadistic prick

Quote from Sir moi 407 :

Each day the number of atheists grows, and that's a good thing

First of all, is there facts out there to prove your claim?
Then, if it's good or bad is not really the point, but why is this happening (if it is)? One man believing in god and other not is pretty much the same as one man driving Ford and other driving Opel, it's irrelevant. But what made them choose one over another and more importantly, what was it that caused them to switch over if they've titled themself as "religious" for many years.

Catholic church has lost some of it's reputation over past few decades, so it's entirely possible that they're losing members. Meantime I've noticed that it's much more acceptable to not be religious person, unlike back in school it was just easier to go to the church, say those prayers and sing those songs if you wanted to stay out of trouble.

The oldest profession in history may be prostitution, but by far the most successful industry throughout all of history has been after-life insurance.

Quote :

First of all, is there facts out there to prove your claim?
Then, if it's good or bad is not really the point, but why is this happening (if it is)? One man believing in god and other not is pretty much the same as one man driving Ford and other driving Opel, it's irrelevant. But what made them choose one over another and more importantly, what was it that caused them to switch over if they've titled themself as "religious" for many years.

There are lots of facts that prove what I'm saying but tbh I can't show you any of them right now...
But for me that seems pretty obvious...
The reasons why it is happening? Because humanity evoluates and see what happened because of religion... Benny 16 is helping for that too, because he is incredibly... well have no words to descripe this man .

Anyway if it wasn't called "religion" hummanity would have invented something else (probably similar) so they can still have (stupid) reasons to do war....

Quote from gezmoor :

Science is inherently self critical, it is built in to the very foundation of Scientific principles to be self judgmental and to seek "truth" by way of observation, confirmation and peer review. Religion on the other hand is never anything but self justifying and is incapable of being self-critical and only ever seeks to strengthen it's own fundamental dogmas.

That is something which should be reminded to all people who think that science is just another religion (no matter the fact that work based on scientific principles doesn't stop producing predictable real world effects despite you believe in it or not)

Quote from gezmoor :

Of course there is much misunderstanding of what Science actually provides in terms of answers, (not to mention just plain bad Science),

Yes, science only tries to explain how things work, religion is (should be) interested (only) in what things really are and why they're there in the first place.

Problem is science is guilty of having overthrown some 'facts' that religions have sold as 'absolute truths' over centuries and millennia. That's why many religious people tend to be interested in science only when it works to their benefit and not when it challenges their beliefs. That's a very hypocritical attitude, but then again many religions (especially catholicism I have to say) have so much hypocrisy in them, it's often hard to tell what good things are left in them.

Science and technology however, are not faiths and so people have it easy to pick what they like (e.g. medical treatments) and ditch the rest (e.g. evolution). What I find disgusting are those bad scientists who try to corrupt the method to prove their own beliefs are scientifically proved (which is useless BTW you don't have any need for a scientific prove if you have a true faith), and the ones who purposely try to lead others into thinking the scientific method is nothing more than another religion.

PS: with all the talking about Petri dishes I'm a bit surprised nobody has compared religions to viruses of the mind yet

Quote from GrIp DrIvEr :

Well as a Christian, that is a no. At first, he wouldn't be able to, then he would just make himself stong enough to pick it up no problem.

So the answer in that case is that a god as per Christian specifications would not be omnipotent. Omnipotence cannot exist, as it is a paradox.

Quote from SamH :

I'm a religious non-believer, but I'm not an atheist. Commonly accepted atheism asserts anything from "there is no god" to "there probably isn't a god".

I am quite happy to declare myself an atheist, but commonly accepted definitions are rarely useful! I am an atheist in the sense that none of the decisions in my life are the result of belief in a deity or, perhaps more importantly, a text defining the existence of that deity (or multiple deities...).

If I have to give blood then that decision, is based on the appropriateness of my blood for the given situation, not what is written in a narrative. If I want sex with someone then the decision is the result of mutual consent, not whether a text defines that act as 'right' or 'wrong'.

Belief in the existence of god is utterly peripheral to my life. There may well be a deity, but it doesn't govern my decisions about life. That is what makes me an atheist. Atheism: living without a theistic interpretation of life.

I'm atheist and I basicly hates everything to do with religion...

Today I have become religious in order to say a few prayers in the vain hope of a miracle Scotland victory against the Dutch.

More chance of Muslims and Christians agreeing that Kenny Dalglish is the only true god, but ach well can but try