I would not pray what you have suggested. For one, I do not need a lord or savior. Two, the god that you believe in should know exactly what it would take to prove its existence and unless those rigorous conditions are met, I will maintain my doubt.

Personal revelation, whether singular or continuous, is not, for me, a good measure of whether or not I should believe something. Demonstrable, reproducible, externally verifiable, logically sound, and consistency with what we can/do know about reality are, among others, the basis of what it takes for me to believe something. The god of the bible, as well as all supernatural claims, are none of those so therefore I cannot believe in its existence.

That kind of prayer is not meaningful investigation and my view is that of doubt and skepticism. “I don’t know” is a null position, a “0” in binary, and because it makes no claims to knowledge, my position does not require falsification. “I do not believe” and “I don’t know” is not a claim to knowledge. Claims to knowledge are what require a path to falsification.

If you were truly agnostic, you couldn’t have had a claim that would have been falsified since, as an agnostic, you would admitted that you do not know.

>> ^shinyblurry:

As a former agnostic, I was perfectly fine with the answer "I don't know". That was never a scary thing to me. At the time, I simply did not have enough information to say either way. I wasn't going to go beyond what I felt was possible to understand given our subjective bias. I only changed my mind when I received revelation of Gods existence. Neither was it a single revelation that I base my belief on, rather it is actually a daily revelation. I could no more deny Gods existence than my own reflection in the mirror. To know God is to know Him personally, and to know Him personally means that He is personally involved in the intimate details of your life.
My question to you is, are you willing to falsify your viewpoint? I already had mine falsified, which is why I became a Christian. I don't expect you to accept my personal testimony as absolute proof of anything. You can investigate the claim for yourself, by asking Jesus to come into your life as Lord and Savior. You can falsify your view this way:
Pray something like..Jesus, I don't know if you're there or not, but if you are there, I want to know you. If you let me know you are there, I will give my life to you. Please come into my life as Lord and Savior. Thank you God. Amen.
Are you willing to do that?
>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

Hey, hello again. Good to see you. I do remember our conversation. I'm glad I could inspire you in some way and I pray it will eventually bear fruit.

As a former agnostic, I was perfectly fine with the answer "I don't know". That was never a scary thing to me. At the time, I simply did not have enough information to say either way. I wasn't going to go beyond what I felt was possible to understand given our subjective bias. I only changed my mind when I received revelation of Gods existence. Neither was it a single revelation that I base my belief on, rather it is actually a daily revelation. I could no more deny Gods existence than my own reflection in the mirror. To know God is to know Him personally, and to know Him personally means that He is personally involved in the intimate details of your life.

My question to you is, are you willing to falsify your viewpoint? I already had mine falsified, which is why I became a Christian. I don't expect you to accept my personal testimony as absolute proof of anything. You can investigate the claim for yourself, by asking Jesus to come into your life as Lord and Savior. You can falsify your view this way:

Pray something like..Jesus, I don't know if you're there or not, but if you are there, I want to know you. If you let me know you are there, I will give my life to you. Please come into my life as Lord and Savior. Thank you God. Amen.

Are you willing to do that?

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

You really haven't been paying attention if you think I'm not open to the idea of a god @shinyblurry. The very fact that I'm arguing I don't know, directly implies that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

I've seen that you have an openness to the idea, but you're also quick to take an adversarial position. Are you truly open to who God is? Are you okay with the idea of a God so long as it isn't Jesus?

I can also say that as a former agnostic, I understand where you're coming from.

There could be a god. But 1) there has to be proof of the it's existence

Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is proof of His existence. I don't know about you, but personally I find the idea of Universes spontaneously creating themselves to be an absurdity.

Imagine a painting with three black lines on it. You could come to all sorts of conclusions about what that is supposed to represent. You could draw philosophical ideas from it. You could see it as a social commentary, or a mathematical representation. You could measure it, sample the paint and paper, run many different tests. You could count the number of brushstrokes. You could do all of this and more, subject it to every sort of empirical inquiry, and you would be no closer to finding about the intention of the painter than you were when you started.

The only way you are going to see the signature of the Creator is if you realize you are looking at His Creation. The evidence is *everywhere*. Neither is poking and prodding it and subjecting it to tests going to tell you anything about what He intended. This is the only real question.

and 2) Religion and god are two separate things, just because a creator exists doesn't give any more credibility to religion.

I agree, and I've made this point to atheists in the past, mainly when I believed that no religion was the correct one. If you consider that everything is equally unlikely, then you are looking at 50/50 odds for special creation versus naturalistic means.

There are many many religions out there. Assuming one is right, that means many are wrong More than likely, all are wrong.

Why is it more likely that all are wrong rather than one being right? The question is, has God revealed Himself to the world, or not. If not, then all are wrong. If so, then one is right.

In all likelihood, odds are better that a creator would be more like Cthulhu then some caucasian, gun loving republican. You claim god made us in his image, when in reality, it's far more likely that you made god in our image.

The stereotype you are presenting does not represent anything Christians believe. Maybe some Christians act that way, but that isn't what scripture says about God. It says that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways.

If we were created, humans are the Creators crowning achievement. The "odds" are better that He made us like Him.

The simple truth though is that god is academic. Either he's always been here and it's all part of some ridiculously elaborate pre-destination plan so it doesn't matter what we do as it's all part of the plan, or he doesn't care, or he does, but he doesn't intervene. In each of those cases. The alleged fact of a creator's existence does not affect our lives, at least not any way we're aware of. Nor does a creator suddenly make any of the religions right or true.

Or, it does matter what we do, because God does intervene in His creation, and He has given us a standard of behavior which He is going to judge us by. The existence of God does not make any of the religions true, but it is positive evidence that one of them is true.

Or god doesn't exist and never has. Again...nothing changes. religion still exists in spite of this, they still get together and do their thing and that's fine. Religion is not inherently bad, it's what you DO with religion that is hurtful or helpful. Even if you removed religion from humanity forever. Humanity still has a ton of other things that we do that are part of our lives that have no rational basis in fact but we do it anyway. That's fine...it's part of what makes us human.

Man corrupts everything he touches because our nature is inherently sinful. Man can use anything as an excuse to do evil.

The dilemma is not for me to believe, the dilemma is for you and/or your god to prove why I should believe. Especially if you want public policy to be influenced. When public policy is not involved, you have the same freedoms everyone else does. And you can't use the bible to prove you're right. You do know what circular reasoning is and that' it's a fallacy right? You quoting the bible does absolutely nothing other than to show you don't really understand what reasoning and logic is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Except there is evidence in the bible which proves the bible is Gods word, such as the fulfilled prophecy. It may not prove that I am right, to you, but the evidence has convinced over 1/3 of the worlds population. That isn't even the question, in any case. I'm not trying to prove I am right to you. I don't believe there is anything I can do to ever convince you that God exists, or that His name is Jesus Christ. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

That is what I was explaining to you earlier. It's not an evidence problem, it's a heart problem. God has already given you sufficient evidence to know that He is, and who He is. Only God can change your heart. What He charged me with is to tell you the gospel and give you an answer for the faith that I have.

Religion wants to say they're right and everyone else is wrong. That's nice. A lot of people think they're right and everyone else is wrong. I think I'm right and my supervisor is wrong. The onus is on me to show why I'm right.

I'm glad you've found happiness in your religion. I've found happiness in the way I live which does not require a god or a religion. Who is right? Maybe none of us are right. Maybe we both are right. The lesson is just simply that there are many ways to happiness. There is no single way. Your happiness is not better than my happiness and vice versa. Your happiness does not get to infringe on my happiness and vice versa. This is how we live and get along in the great melting pot. You don't get dominion. you never will. History is quite clear on what happens when a group of people come along and say, live our way..or else. Believe in the same things we believe...or else.

Christians are not called to have dominion. I will of course strongly disagree with immoral laws, but people have the right to govern themselves as they wish. Although this is still a strongly Christian nation, we have a strong secular influence in our government. I accept that as being the reality.

your happiness does not get to trump someone else's happiness. If you let people steal and kill you have a lot of unhappy, and dead people. That's not sustainable and you can't really survive that way. Again, simple morality that does not require a creator. Next question?


You said that it isn't sustainable yet if you look at history you will see that stealing and killing is what we have been doing all along. The point is this..Let's say that the Nazis won the war and conquered the world. Eventually, they won everyone over to their philosophy, and now there is peace on the Earth. The glue that holds everything together is that once a year, they torture a jewish baby to death on camera, which brings great happiness and unity to the entire world. One year the baby died before they could torture it, and there were riots and many, many people were killed. Is it therefore moral to torture that baby to death, since it brings peace and happiness to the entire world?

>> ^VoodooV

>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^kceaton1:
It goes beyond evolution though, if I'm getting this right. FOR HELL'S SAKE we can use the speed of light to see things FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR^100 older than 10,000 years!!! It's a fucking joke. If you believe this you are an idiot. Period! = .
It's not just light and carbon dating, we have LOTS of ways to show this place is WAY older...

You're forgetting the Law of God Physics which clearly states God can do anything including making the universe appear much older than it actually is for the purposes of fooling his human creations so he has a way of testing their loyalty when he's not asking them to kill their first born son and saying, JUST KIDDING, at the last minute.


The funny part about this stuff is that they typically say that God "moved the photons" (atleast the semi smarter ones will) and the STILL dumb ones will say that, well light was, you see going a different speed back then so it still all adds up...YOU SEE!!!

BUT THEN!...If you understand relativity correctly like me you understand that you can change the speed of light all the time you want. In fact make it go 1 ft/second! It doesn't MAKE A DAMNED difference in how we will STILL measure the time gone/go/will go by! People never get this at all and it really is the sort of thing were someone mumbles under their breath when they finally understand what I'm saying/going to say: "Is that not amazing!!!". You see mass and energy are the same thing and light is special, it goes the same speed EVERYWHERE, EVERY-TIME, ALL THE TIME--and this thing called "light" are these little tiny particles/waves called photons that as I said before, but not quite as directly, they literally ARE mass and energy, so the relationship between us and light is so fundamental it SHOULD blow your mind. But, so many people went through school and listen to their preachers and have no idea how vitally important that "little" discovery that Einstein made was!!! So, even we at 1 ft/s light speed STILL notice everything moving and everyone we know moving at that same "time" measurement of one second (funny isn't it; but, light is traveling at one second as well, how can this make any sense..!?!?! Well here it comes, it is called relativity and the fact that light is a constant and the other very important fact that our measurement of one second really measures...what?) as we are literally stuck in a cage (this "cage" is called The Universe) that cannot be tampered with. This is all due to that little fact that our perception of time IS relative and our view of one second can be EXTREMELY messed with, but to us it will always seem to be one second--even if 1 Billion years went by. The age of the Universe comes from the SHIFT of energy in the photons present that we can see coming from other places in any direction around us; so God would need to put THAT hologram there nothing else, BUT there is a giant problem in doing this (because due to our friends that want God to actively fuck us over for some reason--the hologram only extends technically 10,000 years out and "hides" the rest--if God put everything the way we see it and it isn't even an illusion--what can I say at that point if God was real I would join the Devil in less than a heart beat to overthrow his LYING, SADIST, and moreover EVIL ass!) If the hologram WAS there then: the hologram, it would need to be different in EVERY single direction you look; every time you move one Planck length (I might be wrong, maybe just the length of a photon) further out into space God would need to fix the energy distribution to make his illusion look correct... YOU HAVE no idea how absurd to the absurd degree this sounds, even GOD would spend his entire existence doing this because the job would require this long to do it: forever (until the UNIVERSE STOPS!). I'm not kidding it would be utterly ridiculous (from Earth his "image" would look right, on Mt. Everest, it would look wrong,; in space it would look wrong--in fact if you have sensitive enough equipment every square foot you took would somehow end up looking incorrect--we're talking about the cosmic background radiation, the little thing that lets us know how old our Universe is and that everything around us is moving away from us...

So that comes to the "putting the photons into place syndrome". For the most part I'm starting to think that these people like to abuse their brain in secret rooms with paint, huffing it until they collapse in a heap. in the morning they slowly scrub the white vinyl paint off their nose and mouth and go start with the blue. The problem with this is God had to of atleast put photons 13.5 Billion years out for this to even work--so in the end it falls so flat on it's face it makes no sense. If he was using a hologram, where is the border? Why do we detect gravitational anomalies when those have been proven to be real locally? It just goes on, and on, and on, and on.

I'd love to hear them explain why space may be full of Dark Matter or better yet why is "nothing" full of something called "The Quantum Foam"--you may have heard of "Vacuum Energy", same thing more or less--look it up it's fascinating and may even be the source OF "The Big Bang". Why can we pull photons (from "nothing") out of the Quantum Foam? According to lots of religious folks you can't create something from nothing, but WHAM, there it is! Sometimes, it just might be a bad idea to hold onto your old per-conceived precepts if they do not allow for change. BTW, the photon coming out of thin air was in a very well-known (now) experiment and is HIGHLY worth looking up; you can find details about it in my Videosift Blog (which is entirely about it).

You could disprove their crap all day. The truth is is that they did bad in their science classes, they just didn't get it and for some archaic left over juvenile resentment, they must have their righteous rite of "The Comeback Minister (or Preacher/Prophet/Father/etc...). So in revenge they are taking the easy way out and saying, "Hah, see I didn't need to learn that stuff from Mr. Scrampton in 12th grade! I'm a Minister now and I can just TELL you what is right, because I know it's right in my gut; especially after five cases of Budweiser!". Now they never tell you the truth. They lie, they tell you it "came" to them, like their a prophet now or something. ...Well if they can be prophets, why can't we? Oh wait, scientists do in fact fill this role and they do a good job at it. they constantly warn us of dangers and things the government should do. But, there are far too many damage control freaks with their own agenda running around and they seem to cling to religion as it satisfies very easily their questions, making it so they don't have to work to find the actual hard ones that exist and that we DO need.

It's not in the Bible that any of these idiots would tell us anything meaningful, nor the Koran, or any other holy book. So I find it strange that so many line up and then sit down and listen to these idiots blather on about the world and how to cure it and what it's ills are. They also as I said do a great deal of "re-education" in THEIR vision satisfying that old juvenile, washed up nothing who couldn't get over the fact that he wasn't good at science off the bat or maybe even when he tried too. This is the bane on America (and I would assume many other places, but America has a lot of this). They are teaching and re-teaching our people ridiculous notions and since they require very little work to understand, just community, people believe it--especially because it's being believed in numbers and that is the important part.

Now this was a longer post than what I wanted it to be and it also went past the scope of my original intentions. BUT, the reason why those statistics exist is due to the nature, the epidemic of how people are being re-taught forcibly (you think like us or you are no longer with us--it can have shocking community affects, especially when it becomes a inter-family problem...I know this EXTREMELY well due to my Mormon upbringing; when I became an atheist I was shunned and cut-off from the community, at first. they slowly let me back in when they realized I was an extremely good person, usually a better person than many of the people in the Church and so my neighbors finally no longer cared--cared what the churches stance was either--who or what I was, they took me for what I was--IT TOOK 20 years to happen!). So many people are started and taught young this is a HUGE problem, I know it's a major one with the Mormon church. You are baptized into the church at eight. You should hear the things they ask you to accept and agree to--they are things that only and adult with experience could properly answer (more like someone that is 25) yet an eight year old surrounded by their family and peers of course can give only ONE answer.

After that, you being to be taught all the incorrect things you could possibly think of. If you are even semi-devout like me (and this goes for many other religions as well) going to public school in Utah, the church has LITERALLY built seminary schools next to every High School and Junior High (and this is true outside of Utah too, as I'm SURE Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada--maybe more too, I'm sure they have them locally to attend--I'm sure many of these states have these institutions built right next door or somewhere for kids to attend) you will attend seminary due to the wishes of your parents (my parental situation was beginning to change--and for the better).

Still I attended seminary through grades 7-12 and could have continued in College, but I was agnostic by then...if not basically atheist, just not strong enough to say it. Seminary had it's wonderful parts, but the mis-information was a joke. luckily I was smart, very smart. So I was able to separate the information apart from each other and it allowed me to ask STRONG questions about my one time faith. These questions and their mis-information EASILY killed that religion for eternity, for me--for A LOT of reasons. Many of which, many of you know...easily. It came to ME slow. SO when i talk about helping other people you need to realize what we are up against. facts that do come to us easily usually don't to them and it typically has to do with their past. but, it is HARD to get them to talk about their past openly. For one thing there is no possibility of them being wrong or in danger of it. Somehow we MUST change this.

/Like I said longer, but I hope it was worth it.
/edited for more clarity and a few additions

You really haven't been paying attention if you think I'm not open to the idea of a god @shinyblurry. The very fact that I'm arguing I don't know, directly implies that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

There could be a god. But 1) there has to be proof of the it's existence and 2) Religion and god are two separate things, just because a creator exists doesn't give any more credibility to religion. There are many many religions out there. Assuming one is right, that means many are wrong More than likely, all are wrong. In all likelihood, odds are better that a creator would be more like Cthulhu then some caucasian, gun loving republican. You claim god made us in his image, when in reality, it's far more likely that you made god in our image. The simple truth though is that god is academic. Either he's always been here and it's all part of some ridiculously elaborate pre-destination plan so it doesn't matter what we do as it's all part of the plan, or he doesn't care, or he does, but he doesn't intervene. In each of those cases. The alleged fact of a creator's existence does not affect our lives, at least not any way we're aware of. Nor does a creator suddenly make any of the religions right or true.

Or god doesn't exist and never has. Again...nothing changes. religion still exists in spite of this, they still get together and do their thing and that's fine. Religion is not inherently bad, it's what you DO with religion that is hurtful or helpful. Even if you removed religion from humanity forever. Humanity still has a ton of other things that we do that are part of our lives that have no rational basis in fact but we do it anyway. That's fine...it's part of what makes us human.

The dilemma is not for me to believe, the dilemma is for you and/or your god to prove why I should believe. Especially if you want public policy to be influenced. When public policy is not involved, you have the same freedoms everyone else does. And you can't use the bible to prove you're right. You do know what circular reasoning is and that' it's a fallacy right? You quoting the bible does absolutely nothing other than to show you don't really understand what reasoning and logic is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Religion wants to say they're right and everyone else is wrong. That's nice. A lot of people think they're right and everyone else is wrong. I think I'm right and my supervisor is wrong. The onus is on me to show why I'm right.

I'm glad you've found happiness in your religion. I've found happiness in the way I live which does not require a god or a religion. Who is right? Maybe none of us are right. Maybe we both are right. The lesson is just simply that there are many ways to happiness. There is no single way. Your happiness is not better than my happiness and vice versa. Your happiness does not get to infringe on my happiness and vice versa. This is how we live and get along in the great melting pot. You don't get dominion. you never will. History is quite clear on what happens when a group of people come along and say, live our way..or else. Believe in the same things we believe...or else.

Some people feel it is happier and more productive to steal from or kill each other. Who is right?
your happiness does not get to trump someone else's happiness. If you let people steal and kill you have a lot of unhappy, and dead people. That's not sustainable and you can't really survive that way. Again, simple morality that does not require a creator. Next question?

You've done some nice cherry picking here. Sepacore, my hope in this conversation is that you will be intellectually honest to address the substance of the arguments, rather than trying to find some angle to make your point so you can *avoid* addressing the substance. I don't think that is too much to ask.

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.

To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

Jesus made a claim, that if I put my faith in Him, He would send me the Holy Spirit to supernaturally transform me, and live within me. If that happens, it is objective evidence that His claim is true. You may have other theories as to why it happened to me, or that it happened at all and I am simply deluding myself, but something has happened, and I have changed. Whether it is subjectively experienced, it can be objectively observed in my life. I am a different person, and those in my immediate family and circle of friends have certainly noticed it.

Let's look at the definition of evidence:

ev·i·dence
   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

As you can see, not all evidence can be empirically tested. Personal testimony is sufficient to send people to the electric chair in our court system. My personal testimony, and the testimony of billions of others, does count as evidence. This is all beside the point:

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

You have completely ignored the entire point of my argument, and it seem you deliberately left out the key part of what I was saying:

"but it is something you can test on your own"

I am not telling you, I experienced God so believe in God on that basis. I am telling you that Jesus made a claim which you can empirically test. You have constantly objected that there is no empirical evidence for God, yet you have failed to validate whether this is true. You have merely assumed it is true, through many other lines of reasoning, except the one that would, if the claim was true, produce any results. Again, Jesus said directly that you would have no experience of God outside of going through Him, and your experience directly matches His claim; No have no experience of God. You assume its because there isn't a God, which is natural to assume, but Jesus said it is because there is no way to even approach God or know anything about Him except through Jesus.


Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.

If there is a God, then you are using none of these tools correctly. If you've ever read the book "flatland", then you can understand how two dimensional creatures would consider the possibility of a 3D world illogical and irrational. Thus, so does a materialist consider the spiritual reality to be illogical and irrational. This is why I say atheism is a religion for people who have no experience of God.

The bible anticipates your argument and your skepticism:

1 Corinthians 1:18-22

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Men have always taken great pride in their intellectual accomplishments, yet none of them have ever given even one shred of revelation about Almighty God. The wisdom behind the cross is much higher than this worldly wisdom, and it in fact proves it all to be vanity and foolishness, but the world cannot see that, because it is wise in its own eyes:

Romans 1:22

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.

I'm not talking about probabilities. Jesus was a real person, and He made claims. These claims can be tested.

As far as the difference between God and trevor goes, one has explanatory power and one doesn't. Neither does anyone believe in trevor; he isn't plausible. He isn't even logically coherent. No one believes in flying tea pots, and flying tea pots don't explain anything. God does explain something, and in many cases, is a better explanation for the evidence, such as information in DNA and the fine tuning of our physical laws. Asking whether the Universe was intelligently designed is a perfectly rational question and there is evidence to support this conclusion. Do you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? I am not appealing to an authority here, but I think this statistic shows that people trained in science do believe that the evidence points towards God.

understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.

Again, this is just cherry picking and I think you have lost track of the thread, or you don't want to follow it. You said that part of your skepticism about God creating the Universe was that we understood things about stellar evolution, which is to say we don't need to invoke God as an explanation. I pointed out that not only is our understanding primitive, but even if it were perfect, how does that rule out a Creator? You are confusing mechanism for agency. The stars didn't create themselves, the laws that govern the cosmos caused them to form, and ultimately the laws that caused them to form also had an origin. You have to explain the agency before you can say you don't need God to explain something.

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).

I can just as easily say this:

And I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds)

Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?

I don't, and therefore, I wouldn't expect you to say that what has been described actually proves anything one way or the other.

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.

So what is the experiment that proves science is the best method for obtaining truth if you have to assume things you cannot prove to even do science?

Our being here doesn't prove there is a God, necessarily, but we should be surprised to find ourselves in a Universe that is so finely tuned for life.

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.

You're cherry picking, and dodging the substance, and now even the point of the argument. You were agreeing with Sageminds contention that if God is perfect, then He is also perfectly evil. I pointed out that scripture describes God different, and I also gave you a logical argument outside of scripture for it:

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

Do you have a response to that argument?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.

It's your claim that God does evil in the bible, and so I am asking you why, hypothetically, is it wrong for God to take a life? Since we're talking about the God of the bible, He is the creator of all things, and so has ultimate responsibility over His creation. He is responsible for every aspect of your life, and has the say over your continued existence. Therefore, what makes it wrong for Him to take life just as He gives and maintains life?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.

Again, this is a hypothetical scenario involving the God of the bible. It's your claim that God has done evil, so you can back it up with a logical argument? I've outlined a few scenarios and asked you if God would be evil for doing any of those things. I am not talking about mysterious ways, I am talking about specifics.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Again, we are speaking hypothetically of a scenario you engaged in; "how would you react if the God of the bible showed up at your door". You said you would react in such and such way, which is unrealistic considering how the God of the bible is described, which is what I pointed out to. Based on your modified understanding of the God of the bible, do you think you would react the same way?

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D

No problemo..take your time? How is D3?

>> ^Sepacore

@shinyblurry

I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.
To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.
For this irony to be the foundation to salvation, God would have to be a smartass of an asshole. This is not a sane, righteous or respectable approach given that most humans adopt their parents religious beliefs and are therefore largely disqualified given the amount of pressure some religious people put on family to remain loyal to that which they were born into.

A point that they still have a chance of finding your God has truth to it despite whether your God is actually real as we can't discount the subjective realness of delusions, but to make such a claim is to discount the difficulties and almost impossibilities in some cases due to lack of legitimate opportunity.


If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different.

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.


understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.


Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove?

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).
Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?


Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.


Scripture says differently

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.


For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.


Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.


I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D

If you reread my post, taking into account that when i say evidence i refer only to public evidences, not personal ones that can't be substantiated by the public, i.e. me, then i think my points might become clearer as to why i say faith is an assumption. This is not including personal evidences and felt that I covered that sufficiently enough near the base of my previous post. The basic gist is: if you have personally experienced God, this is in no way a defensible evidence in a discussion requiring objective evidence.

Hence, you have a trump card, one that is only truly valued by yourself and easily discarded by others.

Actually, no. The evidence I have (the internal witness of the Holy Spirit) is the result of a test of the validity of the claim that Jesus has risen from the dead. Jesus promised that after He had been raised from the dead that He would ascend to Heaven and send the Holy Spirit from the right hand of power to everyone who believes in Him. To receive the promised Holy Spirit is objective evidence of the validity of the claim of the resurrection, and Jesus' claim to be the Savior of the world. I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me, but it is something you can test on your own:

Which leads me to this:

It's my knowledge that the faith-claim or God-claim has been unsubstantiated to myself personally as well as others (based on hearing their testimonies and reasons for it being unsubstantiated for them). This is not an assumption on my behalf, you or other religious folk haven't proven anything to me, this I know.

What Jesus said is this:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

Jesus said there was no other way to know anything about God except through Him. So far, your experience precisely matches His claim. You have no seen no evidence of God what so ever. Therefore, if Jesus' claim is true, you shouldn't be surprised to find a lack of evidence of Gods existence; it is in fact exactly what you would expect to see. Yet, you erroneously use this as evidence to rule out Jesus' claims, when He Himself claimed this would be the case if you tried to know God by any other means except through Him. So therefore, you fail to do the one thing that would provide you evidence, not understanding that the lack of evidence you have encountered actually validates His claim.

Additionally I do not believe that 'there IS NO God' as a true Atheist, i claim to be an Atheist because it's easier to define my position quickly as I'm a pin prick away from being one.

I know nothing as to whether God definitively exists or not, to claim otherwise would be an intellectual failure as one wouldn't be taking into consideration that they may be so delusional to the point of not realizing they could be delusional. To which both extreme's are something to ridicule as there is a trump card for both sides.
Theist trump card: God never shows him/her/itself, so can not be disproved.
Atheist trump card: One's so delusional that they can't comprehend that they're suffering from a delusion.

If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different. Where is the genuine humility about the limited capacity of mans ability to reason and his subjective and biased experiences? If you think you are merely matter, why would you trust the chemicals in your brain to be able to rationally determine that? Have you pondered that everything is equally unlikely? How would you know you were looking at a Universe that wasn't designed?

I very strongly doubt there is an intelligent-entity that cares about us based on biological and psychological survival drives such as the delusional properties of 'hope' and the chemical reactions that can occur in extreme scenarios having incredible benefits to over power paralytic levels of fear and keep us moving forward when logical-processing would hold us back or tell us to give up (these are live or die situations with extreme level's of emotion)

This is the standard reply of the atheist (the theist is too scared to face the big bad universe so he makes up an invisible friend to comfort him) but it doesn't apply to me. I grew up without religion and was agnostic until I came to believe in God. I wasn't afraid of death (I was resigned to it happening at some point)..I came to God because I wanted to know what the truth is. I was prepared to die even after finding God.

combined with my thoughts of the statistical probability being unlikely due to both the sheer size of the universe compared to how small God's favorite pet is and that science can explain reasonable theories on how stars and planetary bodies formed.. among many other psychology based reasons.

The medulla oblongata is a relatively small part of the body but you could not live without it. The size of the Universe has nothing to do with the relative importance of Earth. Scripture never says either way whether there is life elsewhere, either.

If you've read up on big bang theory then you would understand that there are some gigantic fudge factors in it (such as cosmic inflation), and understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive. Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove? The question, as it relates to God is, why is it in existence in the first place?

Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

PS: good on you for responding to all those posts, i like reading other peoples discussions about religion.

I enjoy talking with you guys..I am interested in your POV. Most of all, I want you to know the love of God.

EDIT: comment on your reply to Sagemind "If God is perfect, then He is the source of the highest good, and He is perfect love", ok, but by that logic he is also the source of the highest bad, and He is perfect hate.

Scripture says differently:

1 John 1:5

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

God stories involve good things yes, but they also involve bad things. To disregard all the bad because of some good is to review the subject lopsidedly.

I'm aware that some like to pluck things out of context from the bible and call some of Gods judgments evil. An atheist calling God evil is par for the course, but the real question is, were His judgments just? Some atheists seem unable to think past a superficial level about the nature of God, and His role in creation.

For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

It is the combination of good and bad that would lead me to reply to God on my door step "Ok, now i believe you exist, but you're still a sociopath and i don't respect that given your incredible capability, why not be a humanitarian?.. and why give humans intelligence then condemn them for using it when they ask for reliably testable proof? ..please don't hurt me. Also if humans are made in your likeness, can you confirm to Christians that you do in fact have homosexual tendencies?".. naturally God would then proceed to kick my ass with his perfect love/hate

I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself. All you can do is think to insult Him? I might call this evidence of a pathology in your thought process.




>> ^Sepacore:

my favorite was the Left Behind series by Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins... Great fucking series!

If things start happening like is in Left Behind series and some singular person gets israel and palestine to sign a peace treaty, then I will believe 100% that shit is about to hit the fan and prophecy will be fulfilled, since israel and palestine 7 year peace treaty is supposed to be the first act of the antichrist since the antichrist comes as the perfect peace and globalization politician and unites the world in peace... but that peace only supposed to last 3 and half years before christian persecution begins.

course agnostic, but one of the signs have already started since the 90's atheists openly attacking, belittling and hating christians more and more is a sign and 1948 israel becoming a nation is the first. Which is why lot believe IF things follow a path, then 1948 is what kicked things off.

But regardless it is very interesting times, if we don't kill ourselves first or rise up and slay our politicians we'll soon be in full blown persecution of a police state.

hell right now places like Sweden and Iceland enjoy way more freedoms than USA does, USA has lost it's freedom, political correctness has ruined USA

>> ^oOPonyOo:
As far as the reactions from some of the people in this thread go, it's very typical of the sift. The fact is, many of its most vocal members are self-admitted anti-theists. The sift loves videos that bash Christians, and loves anyone who says nasty things against the bible or Christians in general.
I've seen lots of your posts. I wonder why are you here then?


I'm here because I have been using the sift for a long time, probably since the year it made its debut. I decided to particpate in the community about a year ago, simply because the anti-christian bias was getting worse, and I felt I should represent the other side of the coin. Most people here are unaware that there is another side to the coin, but I can relate to them. I used to be agnostic and I didn't see any evidence for God or Spirit. I care about the people here because I know God loves them, even if they don't love Him back (or indeed hate Him with all their heart). God is so much bigger than what people know or believe about Him. It's not a question of these contentious social issues..it's simply about truth. These things are all peripheral to the question of truth. Before I was saved, I honestly desired to know the truth, irregardless of my preconceived notions. I could see the holes in my perspective, and my innate bias towards different people, ideas, and beliefs, and my emotional proclivities tainting what I understood about truth. I always saw obtaining the pure truth as the ideal goal. To understand what truth is, and how we could ever know it objectively, free from our subjective bias. I believe that was a blessing from God, a tender mercy from Heaven, to even be interested in such things. If you want to know the real truth, not just what you would like to believe, then God can reach you. If you don't, then even if God did reach you, you will ignore it, suppress it, mock it, or do everything other than follow it. I'm here to reach such people, and occassionally they will reach out. All I hope to do is help someone know the love of God for themselves.

>> ^VoodooV:
Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"


If you're not agnostic, you're either a liar (falwell, robertson, et al) or insane (bush, shinyblurry).
>> ^VoodooV:

two sides of the same coin. different beliefs...same fanaticism.

Good to know that your position is "the only sane choice" but somehow it's the rest of us are the fanatics.

@VoodooV
Humans can speak firmly, loudly, emotionally, impatiently and disrespectfully on subjects they care about. This doesn't mean they are angry, could just be passionate (lol, but also could be angry)

If you perceive Atheists as being angry in the face of Agnosticism, I suggest (where possible) informing them what your position actually is as I've met some and heard of others who erroneously thought it was a position of no opinion.. and that's what would get them agitated.

The number of times I've felt I've had to go in to bat for Agnostics is far greater than the times I've had to bat for Atheists, by these experiences I do understand the negativity, but feel some more recent comments were categorizing a bit extensively.. remember, some people are just assholes, regardless of their stance on a subject.

Main reason for this post: Atheism is not a religion. (think that was the first time I've gone bold on the sift)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I don't like going to the dictionary, but I really want to distance Atheists and Agnostics as far from religions as possible.. had too many conversations where people try to tell me Atheist and Agnostic are the same thing and are also a religion.. *grits teeth*

So, in every dictionary definition you will notice that 'religions' relate to the having of a belief, not the lack there of (note that i don't actually doubt you already know this).
If you want to make this claim, then by the same logic you must also accept that you and I are also in the Afairyist religion, and the Aunicorn religion, Acookie-monster religion, and A etc etc religion (I took the assumption you didn't believe in some things, please do correct me if I'm wrong). Hopefully this points out how absurd it is to claim 'not believing something is real' is a religion.

It's incorrect on more counts than this (no practices/rituals, no rules/guidelines, no faith/acceptance of a supernatural entity) and imo comes from one of 2(3) things, either you're wrong and don't know it, or you're trying to agitate people. You've made too many good points for me to suspect the former without additional reason to suggest you weren't sure of the legitimate meaning of religion.

I don't like religions, and if by 'religion' you did know the meaning, and weren't trying to agitate people, then i suspect you were referring to the dogmatic fanaticism that some Atheists display.. in which case, OK, yeah, but would rather you just say we're 'whining little bitches that too-aggressively make their stance and don't shutup', that i could accept without posting.

Agree with everything you said in your previous post except 'Atheist religion', 'anger' and 'revenge'.

I'm an atheist, can I be under YOUR umbrella? I think both theists and atheists are under the agnostic umbrella. You can't know...hence why there's still a debate. Theists claim something that cannot be proved false. Russell's teapot and all...>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

With so many agreeable comments, i taught myself how to quote properly * pats himself on the back *

>> ^ChaosEngine:
If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.
^ I'm in and have a bunch of analytical minded friends who would be gearing up before they even heard the word 'resistance'.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination
^ /agree re pineapple. It belongs on my pizza's as much as i belong in churches, it ruins the experience.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens.

>> ^volumptuous:

Richard Dawkins' approach to this is the term "non-theist".

^ The terms 'Anti-Theist' and 'Non-Theist' are more sensible/respectable than 'Atheist' imo (more so after hearing Dawkins mention Afairyist), but i accept the latter as it requires less side-track debating over terminology.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I really, really hope that Videosift5 gives the ability to spend a PP on a "super upvote" for comments. (or something similar).
@Sepacore would get mine!! (above)

^ Cheers

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.


^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?


^ .. make duck bills with your fingers, put them to your temples and open them up as you pull your hands away: you're blowing my mind.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]

^ * slumps down in a corner and cries softly while singing Amy Grant's 'Innocence Lost' (Christian music, lol Google FTW) *

I can't relive my life
I can't retrace my tracks
I can't undo what's done
There is no going back

I chased a selfish dream
Did not survey the cost
Illusions disappeared
I've found my innocence lost

Some say it's lessons learned
Some say it's a living life
I say it's choices made
Knowing wrong from right

>> ^ChaosEngine:
What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc).
^ worked in offices for past 5 years.. don't get me started on astrology and homeopathy. The girls and 1 guy don't care what i say about religions and Gods.. but the moment i open my mouth about those other 2.. (think it's because i kept showing them proofs against the practices)


@Lawdeedaw
I see the points you're making, but there's a lot more to an Agnostic position than there is to either of the extremes. For 1, there's room to fluctuate to either end of the extremes without having to make an incredible claim that simply can't be backup in any scientific way as there are always 'trump cards' for this subject.

Better than Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry and Biology, imo Psychology has the greatest chance of proving God doesn't exist, but unfortunately it's not going to be an actual 'proof', at best (and it irritates/pains me to say) it will only be a really good reason to 'believe' or suggest that Gods are most likely figments of our imaginations off of our preferences. Easily ignored when in the face of 'faith'.

Call it 'safe' or even 'fence sitting' if need be, but i call it the result of thinking about the subject and being honest enough to accept 'i, nor anyone, actually knows.. but i think X due to Y'.

I used to think an Atheistic position for scientists was logical off of the point of 'no proof, don't believe'. But the reality is that scientists do believe things without evidence, they work their butts off to prove the idea, and either succeed or prove the opposite, sometimes even discovering things they had no intention of or even an idea that they were close to.. point being there are stages where they have reason to believe but don't have proof and these stages can make getting funding quite difficult.

For a Scientist, publicly and privately resting on an agnostic position somewhere between the 2 ends of the scale is more reasonable/justifiable and less arrogant/distracting.

If you can't honestly state "I know there is no God" in any/every debate/discussion, then technically you're Agnostic (unless stating the complete opposite).. but like me would take up a stance a pin prick away from 1 of the 2 disingenuous and arrogant extremes (specifically the good one, that doesn't 'justify' us not caring about others).

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

^ If it ever started raining/reigning in the way and with the unforgiving dedications a number of religions have in the past, i hazard the guess you would likely jump under my umbrella quick smart when it was the only place that gave us both the option to state 'i don't know/care' and live to tell about it.

/Agree re the disapproval of Atheists disregarding the line.. but to this day, I've never met an 'Atheist' that definitively stated when pushed 'i know God doesn't exist'.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^VoodooV:
Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

Sigh... I won't put you under the atheist umbrella but to put it that I am not making a sane choice is rather petty.
But since we are being petty, here is a my argument. He (Neil) says he is a scientist but isn't going to make a claim either way. Okay, so he doesn't know if God exists and won't deny (take a stand) about something if it hasn't been unproven (So un-scientist-like; no leap of faith here...)
In other words he doesn't even know if science works at all. After all, God could snap his fingers and science could be turned on its head and cease to function. Neil is saying this is 100% possible that science is fucking useless and God is all important. He is also saying that this scenario may not be the case...
How scientific of him to take this position. Now you might argue my point is more hyperbole or illogical but really it isn't. It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason... George Carlin I miss your jokes old man


We're talking about who or what created life, the universe, and everything. So yeah, I don't think I'm going out on a limb much when I say, "I don't know." However, asserting that you do know what did, or didn't does seem to be quite insane. Someday maybe we will know, but that day isn't today.

If you want to think that's petty, fine, but you seem to be projecting, IMO. Same with your "insights" into NDT's thought process. You seem to be putting a lot of words and thoughts into NDT's head that he didn't make...or assert to. These assertions that NDT and agnostics are cowardly is insulting and unfounded and again, if I dare say so, seem to be projecting your own insecurities onto NDT. And again, you're conflating the idea of god with religion. Atheists continue to make this flawed claim that if god does somehow exists, that obviously the theists are correct on religion and that god is this petty douchebag that likes to play with peoples lives and do shit like changing the laws of science for shits and grins. If god does exist, I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that god is nothing like Q from Star Trek.

I think it's quite the opposite of being cowardly and "not taking a stand" when one comes out publicly "takes a stand" to correct atheists that he is not an atheist. Obviously, if agnostics are the cowards you claim them to be, NDT wouldn't be coming out on this issue. Talk about being petty. Again, you doth protest too much. Atheists like to throw accusations of cowardice a lot for some reason....I'm sure that would be an interesting psychological study.

"It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason..." I don't understand why you feel the need to ridicule it in the first place. You can't really cry foul about being petty when you make a statement like this. Again...no better than theists in this regard, you're one and the same. And really, if agnostic is subject to ridicule. Is it really the safe route? I'm sorry you feel you have to crush those who blaspheme against YOUR religion.

@Boise_Lib is quite right on this. Atheists really need to take a chill pill. The defensiveness, and quite frankly anger, when it comes to the atheist reaction to agnostics only serve to illustrate that you're no better than theists. Atheism always seemed to be more about getting revenge on theists instead of being logical and rational.

Try loving instead of hating, you'll live longer.