Thread: The definitions of atheism and agnosticism

A huge amount of time gets wasted in this forum on arguments between people who are using different definitions of the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”. This post is an attempt to end (or at least reduce) such pointless discussion by clarifying the standard definitions of those terms.

“Agnostic” is probably one of the most badly misunderstood terms in religious philosophy. Most people believe “agnostic” to mean a person who is undecided, but that’s not the formal definition of agnosticism as used by religious philosophers. The formal, academic definition of agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for people to know whether or not a god exists, and that any attempt to discern the existence of god is therefore futile. This is not the same as someone who simply hasn’t made up their mind on the issue. Here are some links to references on agnosticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

There are two type of atheism: “strong atheism” and “weak atheism”. A strong atheist believes that no gods exist, while a weak atheist merely does not believe in any particular gods. Although it might seem like needless semantics, there is actually an important difference between “does not believe that gods exist” and “believes that no gods exist.” When saying “I believe that no gods exist” one is making a positive statement of belief. In other words, a strong atheist believes that he has found some sort of evidence (through logic, empiricism, or whatever) that indicates that gods do not exist. It is reasonable to ask a strong atheist for their evidence that no gods exist, and the burden of proof is on the strong atheist to back up their claim.

A weak atheist, on the other hand, is simply a person who is not convinced that gods exist. They have no burden of proof, because they are not making any claims – they are simply stating a lack of belief due to insufficient/lacking evidence. Unlike a positive atheist, it is not reasonable to ask a weak atheist to prove that god does not exist, because a weak atheist does not claim to have such proof; rather, the burden of roof is on the person who claims that gods exist.

Note that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive; a person could be both agnostic and a weak atheist. Also, it’s possible for a person to be a weak atheist and/or agnostic in general, but still strongly disbelieve in any particular religion.

Note that I am talking about the formal, academic definitions of agnosticism and atheism here. You are certainly free to substitute your own personal definitions, but in order to avoid pointless semantic arguments you should be sure to make it clear that you are using a non-standard definition. Also, you shouldn’t be surprised if most of the other people on the board aren’t interested in your personal definition and prefer to use the standard academic definitions.

It is reasonable to ask a strong atheist for their evidence that no gods exist, and the burden of proof is on the strong atheist to back up their claim.

No it is not reasonable, the burden of proof does not lie with the strong athiest to prove any "claim"

thiests are the ones with explaining to do

What is it we are claiming?

I dont claim anything! I reject your(the theist) claim!

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

No it is not reasonable, the burden of proof does not lie with the strong athiest to prove any "claim"

thiests are the ones with explaining to do

A strong atheist is a person who claims to have some reason to believe that gods do not exist. A strong atheist is one who makes the statement "I am sure that god does not exist." If someone makes such a claim, it is reasonable to ask them for their evidence that god does not exist.

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

What is it we are claiming?

If you are a strong atheist, you claim to have some reason to believe that gods do not exist.

I dont claim anything! I reject your(the theist) claim!

Then you are a weak atheist, and (as I said in my first post) have no burden of proof.

True , but at the risk of becoming like a broken record, I don't claim to have some reason to believe that fairies with Christmas trees up their asses dont exist outside of a human fantasy, also.

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

True , but at the risk of becoming like a broken record, I don't claim to have some reason that fairies with Christmas trees up their asses exist outside of a human fantasy, also.

What is your point? I think everyone here already knows that.

By default, you should not believe any claim without some evidence. But not believing a claim due to lack of evidence is not the same as having evidence that the claim is false.

i am a strong atheist who says "i believe there is no god" - i do that without any firm evidence apart from a conviction built up over the years that this is the best explanation of the universe as i see it

no theist can offer proof of the existence of god, and instead states that belief is sufficient - i don't see why i can't allow myself the same luxury of not requiring evidence

My point is, there is no discernible difference in probability of existence between "a god" and any other fantasy figure.

Originally Posted by marnixR

i am a strong atheist who says "i believe there is no god" - i do that without any firm evidence apart from a conviction built up over the years that this is the best explanation of the universe as i see it

no theist can offer proof of the existence of god, and instead states that belief is sufficient - i don't see why i can't allow myself the same luxury of not requiring evidence

Well, it’s up to you. Generally atheists ruthlessly bash theists for holding a belief that they can’t back up with evidence. I suppose you can have a belief without evidence as well if you like, but then the best you can say is that your beliefs aren’t any more ill-founded then theirs. If you’re happy with that, then go for it I suppose.

.....
if i hadn't seen it with my own 2 eyes, i would never have believed it happened. a theist who yields!!!
there might be hope after all.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

.....
if i hadn't seen it with my own 2 eyes, i would never have believed it happened. a theist who yields!!!
there might be hope after all.

What theist?

Edit:
Oh, wait - did you just assume that I was a theist simply because I was having a minor disagreement with some other atheists? My, what a credit to clear-headed atheist reasoning you are. It's great to have you on the team.

Nice definitions. Thanks...the old semantics arguments were getting particularly annoying.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Nice definitions. Thanks...the old semantics arguments were getting particularly annoying.

My dream (and I admit it's a pretty wild fantasy) is that any time the semantics arguments start up, someone can just point to this thread and say "Read, comprehend, then come back" and shut down these obnoxious arguments before they start. Or at the very least, perhaps the semantics arguments will be confined to this thread, instead of littering dozens of other threads. Then the people who don't want to re-hash the same old arguments over and over can simply ignore them while the rest of us get on with other topics.

Down worry about it, be happy!

Scifor's post is exactly right. Hopefully the thread will help but some people seem to get definitions firmly stuck in their heads that agnostic = undecided and atheist = deny God that it doesn't matter how many times you correct them.
However, the OP is dead on. If it were wrong then I would have no words to describe my own beliefs, as I am both agnostic and a weak atheist.

When did mathematics and religion decide to be friends?

Oh, where was I?

[/i]

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by dejawolf

.....
if i hadn't seen it with my own 2 eyes, i would never have believed it happened. a theist who yields!!!
there might be hope after all.

What theist?

Edit:
Oh, wait - did you just assume that I was a theist simply because I was having a minor disagreement with some other atheists? My, what a credit to clear-headed atheist reasoning you are. It's great to have you on the team.

ha, well yeah my mind has been pretty muddled lately.
my poor toes are mangled after all the bumping into various objects they have done.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

ha, well yeah my mind has been pretty muddled lately.
my poor toes are mangled after all the bumping into various objects they have done.

At least you know that you intuition was correct :wink:

I am not sure the semantical differences do anything more than expand on the the reality of agnosticism. The scholastic definitions of many words do not convey the nuances and connotations and implications that we give to the word.

Even so, I would agree that agnosticism is not properly represented by the idea that it is someone who has not made up his mind. I think a word picture I have heard is that the agnostic is religiously ignorant and apathetic -- that is, he doesn't know and he doesn't care.

And that well fits within the scholastic definition that an agnostic does not believe you can "know" if God exists or not. What's more he sees no reason to cogitate about it.

However, I think that most honest Christians are, under the definition, somewhat agnostic from the standpoint that we cannot objectively prove that God exists. The similarity ends there, however, because we do "believe" God exists and we do care about it.

When we come to this kind of one-size-fits-all definitions, I find them to be like one-size-fits-all T-shirts -- they don't.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I am not sure the semantical differences do anything more than expand on the the reality of agnosticism. The scholastic definitions of many words do not convey the nuances and connotations and implications that we give to the word.

Even so, I would agree that agnosticism is not properly represented by the idea that it is someone who has not made up his mind. I think a word picture I have heard is that the agnostic is religiously ignorant and apathetic -- that is, he doesn't know and he doesn't care.

And that well fits within the scholastic definition that an agnostic does not believe you can "know" if God exists or not. What's more he sees no reason to cogitate about it.

However, I think that most honest Christians are, under the definition, somewhat agnostic from the standpoint that we cannot objectively prove that God exists. The similarity ends there, however, because we do "believe" God exists and we do care about it.

When we come to this kind of one-size-fits-all definitions, I find them to be like one-size-fits-all T-shirts -- they don't.

...and this is why we have this thread...

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I think a word picture I have heard is that the agnostic is religiously ignorant and apathetic -- that is, he doesn't know and he doesn't care.

I am a devout agnostic (under the definition favoured in this sticky). I am religiously well informed and I care passionately about the question, even though I do not believe it to be currently (and perhaps ever) answerable.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I think a word picture I have heard is that the agnostic is religiously ignorant and apathetic -- that is, he doesn't know and he doesn't care.

I am a devout agnostic (under the definition favoured in this sticky). I am religiously well informed and I care apssionately about the question, even though I do not believe it to be currently (and perhaps ever) answerable.

In a way, this definition places me (a religious person) in the domain 'agnosticism', as I don't think it's possible to confirm (or disconfirm thereof) God's existence; I just <believe> He exists, without <knowing> He exists... just a thought

What would a guy be if he likes the idea of god but would accept it immediately if he found key evidence for darwinism that wasn't able to be concluded circular reasoning?

Originally Posted by Happydude

What would a guy be if he likes the idea of god but would accept it immediately if he found key evidence for darwinism that wasn't able to be concluded circular reasoning?

Umm...a potential Darwinist theist?

I often feel agnostic though

Youre only as agnostic as the woman (or man) you feel.

the first step towards accepting darwinism is to aknowledge that the hebraic word for day has a similar meaning as "period" and that the hebraic meaning.
then you can start comparing the theory of creation, to how things really phased out.
if you will, you can say that god is more of a directing force, than an acting force, in that he directs the way he wants his creation to take shape, in small iterations, like man breeding bulls to get as much meat out of it as possible.
for 400 billion years, god experimented with how he wanted things to pan out, in in several hundreds gazillion iterations.
now read the bible, and aknowledge that most of what is written in there, doesnt make sense. aknowledge that man, over the 300 years before the bible was written down, has twisted the word of god beyond recognition,
and what you get in the bible, is merely the essence of what is truly the word of god.
now throw away the bible, because you realize its a far too unreliable source of getting to know the true will of god.
start thinking about that iteration thing again.
realize that basically, god IS evolution,
and that every little "random" step of the way, actually is a small nudge towards gods ultimate goal.

that ultimate goal is for the human race to exist eternally,
but to do so, we must embrace science, learn whatever we can about earth and the universe, so that we may survive impending catastrophies,
and be ready to escape our planet in 5 billion years, when the sun swells into a red giant. it would be really sad if an earth-destroying meteorite was to come crashing down, resetting the work that god has been doing for the last 64 million years, without us being able to do anything, because some fundie demanded that we submit to god fully, and banned science books, and instead set up mandatory school reading of the bible.

if you're looking for meaning, and a mission in life, make it to support science, and the furthering of society, and the preservation of the planet for our children.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

the first step towards accepting darwinism is to aknowledge that the hebraic word for day has a similar meaning as "period" and that the hebraic meaning.

And this will assist the Hindus, Bhuddists, Jains, atheists, agnostics, Roman catholics, Church of England (and Scotland) Protestants, Taoists, Animalists, solipsists, pantheists, etc, exactly how?

The XXXXbig step towards Darwinism is to accept we all came from a VOLCANO.

From fire.

From chaos.

That we are planet ZIT material.

I guess I'm a strong Atheist
Well this my logic,
if the god/s belongs to a religeon, why are all Holy books have unscientific facts, and if someody is going to argue about the books being tampered with by people, why hasn't the god/s insured the safekeeping of their/his/hers holy book with their/his/hers "powers" to insure that future generations will worship them.
Plus where is that god? People of specific religeons practice their spirtual acts, and still they get disaster, famine, war, poverty etc.
We also have to consider the psychological and anthropoligical needs of the primitive Human, religeon helped with Tribal allegiance, Companionship and the existance of a protective all powerfull father/mother.
Also humans have the ability to think about their future, thinking about death, peeing in their pants and creating an infinte after-life in a safe haven. Which I find disturbing.
I hope all of that didnt sound too mad.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

A huge amount of time gets wasted in this forum on arguments between people who are using different definitions of the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”. This post is an attempt to end (or at least reduce) such pointless discussion by clarifying the standard definitions of those terms.

“Agnostic” is probably one of the most badly misunderstood terms in religious philosophy. Most people believe “agnostic” to mean a person who is undecided, but that’s not the formal definition of agnosticism as used by religious philosophers. The formal, academic definition of agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for people to know whether or not a god exists, and that any attempt to discern the existence of god is therefore futile. This is not the same as someone who simply hasn’t made up their mind on the issue. Here are some links to references on agnosticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

There are two type of atheism: “strong atheism” and “weak atheism”. A strong atheist believes that no gods exist, while a weak atheist merely does not believe in any particular gods. Although it might seem like needless semantics, there is actually an important difference between “does not believe that gods exist” and “believes that no gods exist.” When saying “I believe that no gods exist” one is making a positive statement of belief. In other words, a strong atheist believes that he has found some sort of evidence (through logic, empiricism, or whatever) that indicates that gods do not exist. It is reasonable to ask a strong atheist for their evidence that no gods exist, and the burden of proof is on the strong atheist to back up their claim.

A weak atheist, on the other hand, is simply a person who is not convinced that gods exist. They have no burden of proof, because they are not making any claims – they are simply stating a lack of belief due to insufficient/lacking evidence. Unlike a positive atheist, it is not reasonable to ask a weak atheist to prove that god does not exist, because a weak atheist does not claim to have such proof; rather, the burden of roof is on the person who claims that gods exist.

Note that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive; a person could be both agnostic and a weak atheist. Also, it’s possible for a person to be a weak atheist and/or agnostic in general, but still strongly disbelieve in any particular religion.

Note that I am talking about the formal, academic definitions of agnosticism and atheism here. You are certainly free to substitute your own personal definitions, but in order to avoid pointless semantic arguments you should be sure to make it clear that you are using a non-standard definition. Also, you shouldn’t be surprised if most of the other people on the board aren’t interested in your personal definition and prefer to use the standard academic definitions.

are you God?

No, of course not........BUT.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

are you God?

No, of course not........BUT.

Do you actually have a point to make, or are you just trying to waste people's time and the forum's storage space by making cryptic remarks?

There's nothing cryptic about my message at all.

I have been studying the concept that the more one has something to say about the subject of God, the more they can fall into the trap of inadvertently becomming God in the minds of those who they convince on the subject of God.

I apologise if that offended you.

StreamSystems. Your post was not cryptic - that implies a hidden meaning. It was simply unintelligible. Your explanation left me little the wiser.
This is a forum for discussion. The language we employ is English. You are using English words, but you are not communicating with them. Please make a better effort in future. I would have thought you want to get your ideas across, else why bother posting. Scifor's post, and many others, indicate that the majority of your posts are either ignored, or generate frustration because of their incomprehensibility.

And please don't post a reply where you waffle about having something new to say and therefore needing to say it in a new way. That won't wash. Be clear. Be concise. Be exact.

thank you.
Ophiolite

I'm going on holiday for a while.......to get better educated........will be back when out of rehab (as you would expect).

Ophiolite, I know this won't make sense to you, as Jesus was a mythical figure of history, the robin hood of the Jews, but he had much to say about God, the Father, and paradoxicaly, as the beievers of that robin hood held it, he became their new God (because it would seem he had much to say about God the Father). That was my simple if not childish and rash point. I don't know what the population of believers "is" from where you come from, in the Christian faith, but I do not want to start a thread on the difference between seeing is believing and faith without reason.

Please don't be offended.

I won't say that sort of thing again.

But, It is always good to explain what one was trying to present with more clarity the more one is questioned about one's heralded albeit brief point.

You're stuck, stream systems.

They have you pinned.

How is your holiday?

Off the medication yet, as you put appropriately to them?

Why don't you just buy them, treat them like slaves?

You're stuck, stream systems.

They have you pinned.

How is your holiday?

Off the medication yet, as you put appropriately to them?

Why don't you just buy them, treat them like slaves?

Better still: be more SLUTTY: that is sure to inspire them: play the whore with no Father: be a rebel.

BE A REBEL

When y'alll accecpt your own version of ooooooorthority, you may as well help some like me, for once....

Yes.

ooooooorthority.

the rain in spain falls mainly on the plane

It's been my overwelming and unwanted experience that beyond websters definition of Atheists and Agnostics...

Atheists = Don't believe in God.

Agnostics = Hate the very Idea of God, and anyone who believes in a God is completely ignorant.

Now with that being said, most religous people agree that "God" Judges you based on your works and your FAITH.

Now how could anyone have faith if you had some absolute concrete evidence in the existance of God?

Unfortunately, because of this it makes it impossible/Highly Improbable to convince people who are Atheists that God exists because they want proof which God exists. I don't think God would even want a convert that needed concrete proof because that person would be devoid of faith.

Originally Posted by Wordofthefree

Agnostics = Hate the very Idea of God, and anyone who believes in a God is completely ignorant.
.

I don't know where you acquired this understanding, but it is faulty. Agnostics fall into two categories (a) tehy are undecided upon the existence of God (b) they do not believe the existence of God can be determined one way or the other.
As a devout agnostic I can assure you that I do not hate the very idea of God. It isd true that I think that anyon who believes in God is ignorant, but I think the same about those who defintiely don't believe in God.
All in all I am decisive in my indecision , and resolute in my uncertainty.

The only reason why I don't believe in God is because I see it as a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Wordofthefree

Now with that being said, most religous people agree that "God" Judges you based on your works and your FAITH.

Now how could anyone have faith if you had some absolute concrete evidence in the existance of God?

Unfortunately, because of this it makes it impossible/Highly Improbable to convince people who are Atheists that God exists because they want proof which God exists. I don't think God would even want a convert that needed concrete proof because that person would be devoid of faith.

It’s not just a matter of there not being “concrete proof.” I don’t think there’s any good evidence for any particular god. If there were even a little evidence that consisted of more than "my ancient book of magic stories says so" or "my subjective internal feelings say so," I would be a lot more inclined to believe.

Besides, if god deliberately withholds evidence that he exists, how is anyone supposed to know which of the many competing gods are the correct one? Picking one randomly?

I know this will not satisfy Scifor, but:

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Rom 8:16

That is one of the way we "know."

Who cares about this shit Atheism??

You are trying to decieve yourself. Remember that a muslim came oneday to remind you and this is my message done here.

Originally Posted by profahmfaw

Who cares about this shit Atheism??

You are trying to decieve yourself. Remember that a muslim came oneday to remind you and this is my message done here.

Atheists are our mislead brothers, love them greater than yourself and you will truly be your brothers keeper.

Originally Posted by profahmfaw

Who cares about this shit Atheism??

You are trying to decieve yourself. Remember that a muslim came oneday to remind you and this is my message done here.

Wow, now there's a convincing argument. Here's my rebuttal:
"Who cares about this Muslim shit? You are deceiving yourself. Remember that an atheist told you this one day"

Do I win?

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by profahmfaw

Who cares about this shit Atheism??

You are trying to decieve yourself. Remember that a muslim came oneday to remind you and this is my message done here.

Wow, now there's a convincing argument. Here's my rebuttal:
"Who cares about this Muslim shit? You are deceiving yourself. Remember that an atheist told you this one day"

Do I win?

Who cares about science shit? Ye are deceiving yourselves. Remember that an autodidact came and reminded you of this.

Originally Posted by profahmfaw

Who cares about this shit Atheism??

You are trying to decieve yourself. Remember that a muslim came oneday to remind you and this is my message done here.

Yes, Muhammad reminded everyone who didn't convert to Islam by slitting their throats.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

...used by religious philosophers...

What is agnostic...

I think you partially hit the nail on the head. (Good write-up, btw.) Depending on interpretation, of course, it's a gray subject.

If you assume that we're trying to prove God's existence with science, then yeah, I'm definitely an agnostic, because I believe you can't use the physical (worldly) tests of standard science to poke something that is supernatural.

Or, if you assume that the existence of God is proved by religion, or that God is only as religious descriptions state, then I'm also an agnostic, not to mention an atheist in that case. I personally don't think it is possible to describe or prove the existence of God to another person, in any simple means. Faith isn't like that; it's almost entirely an internal issue.

-

Slipping this bit in...

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Besides, if god deliberately withholds evidence that he exists, how is anyone supposed to know which of the many competing gods are the correct one? Picking one randomly?

I'm too lazy to find and cut-n-paste some of my previous posts about this very idea, but if you want my opinion on that question, it's this:

I personally believe that all religions are interpretations of the same "phenomena". Take an object, have it described by thirty different people, and you will get thirty different descriptions. In a way, they're all equally valid because they all are interpretations of the same object. The flavor that best suits the reader, right?

So in essence, no religion is necessarily right or wrong if it differs from another. Even polytheists fall within this idea, too, since their interpretation is based on property division, rather than unification.

To All My Friends Here Who Do Not believe in God(Allah) here is a simple proof for Allah existance but it's only for honest people and you should tell everyone here the result just open your mind and try to be honest and don't cover the truth.


You want to make sure of god (Allah) exsitance and if Islam was right. OK

If you faced a difficult problem which can not be solved or if you can not do anything possible like succeding in a test you expect to fail in it, Just say this word loud and you will solve it:

In The Name of Allah or in Arabic (Bism Ellah)


afterthat tell all people here what was happned to you???

if you failed and nothing was solved this means one of two:
1st : you are a liar or ingratitude.
2nd: you did not say it from your heart.


please try it many times

To All My Friends Here Who Do Not believe in FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) here is a simple proof for FSM existance but it's only for honest people and you should tell everyone here the result just open your mind and try to be honest and don't cover the truth.


You want to make sure of FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) exsitance and if Pastafarianism was right. OK

If you faced a difficult problem which can not be solved or if you can not do anything possible like succeding in a test you expect to fail in it, Just say this word loud and you will solve it:

In The Name of The Flying Spaghetti Monster or in Noodle (Spaghetti)


afterthat tell all people here what was happned to you???

if you failed and nothing was solved this means one of two:
1st : you are a liar or ingratitude.
2nd: you did not say it from your heart.


please try it many times

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

In The Name of The Flying Spaghetti Monster or in Noodle (Spaghetti)

afterthat tell all people here what was happned to you???

if you failed and nothing was solved this means one of two:
1st : you are a liar or ingratitude.
2nd: you did not say it from your heart.

please try it many times

A voice boomed from a room beyond: "Shut the f.ck up, I'm trying to sleep"

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

To All My Friends Here Who Do Not believe in FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) here is a simple proof for FSM existance but it's only for honest people and you should tell everyone here the result just open your mind and try to be honest and don't cover the truth.


You want to make sure of FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) exsitance and if Pastafarianism was right. OK

If you faced a difficult problem which can not be solved or if you can not do anything possible like succeding in a test you expect to fail in it, Just say this word loud and you will solve it:

In The Name of The Flying Spaghetti Monster or in Noodle (Spaghetti)


afterthat tell all people here what was happned to you???

if you failed and nothing was solved this means one of two:
1st : you are a liar or ingratitude.
2nd: you did not say it from your heart.


please try it many times

I left the fsm, it just wasn't the thing for me i am now a tea-pottist and a devout one at that

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

In The Name of The Flying Spaghetti Monster or in Noodle (Spaghetti)

OY! What do you know 'bout the spaghetti incident?!! :-D

--------------

I wonder how many more times it has to be repeated that you can't TELL someone that God exists and they'll believe it? (Assuming by "someone" I mean someone with a brain.)

It's inherently impossible to prove to someone that God exists by any known form of communication.

Assume we run a test.
Scenario: A person comes to you and wants to prove that they saw God and consequently that God exists. They tell you they saw God. Now what?
You have a problem, because you have to decide whether or not the person is telling the truth. What are the ramifications, and what are the other possible explanations?

If you think you've seen God, good on ya. Have fun.
If you're lying that you've seen God, I don't really care.

Since belief and fanaticism can make people totally believe that they've done something or seen something, they can bust practically any lie-detector test. Even if I can prove that the person really truly believes they've seen God, does that make any difference to me? How do I be certain that the dude isn't just off his marble? Truth is, I can't.

So in the end, the same ol' question remains. Do -I- have faith in the existence of God? Everything else is irrelevant. Like I said, if you think you've seen him, cool beans. If not, well, the only one I really need to be concerned about is myself anyway.

If you first assume that God, if he existed, would be a supernatural being beyond worldly test, and then assume from this that anyone stating they've seen God would not have any physical proof, you're left with only two options. Either you believe the person, or you don't.

It gets weirder. Let's break it down.

1. You trust the person, and believe in God, so you believe the person.

2. You don't trust the person, and don't believe in God, so you don't believe them.

3. You don't trust the person, but you believe in God, and it doesn't matter.

4. You trust the person, but don't believe in God, so you remain confused.

Then of course you get into the aspect of whether or not the person is telling you they saw God as a way of proving to you that he exists. If that's the case, you run into the same problem, because that person can't physically prove himself given the assumption of God's nature above (as a supernatural being).

Think about it. If that person got frustrated and pulled out a picture he took during his "God sighting" what would you do with it? In today's world, if someone handed you a picture and said "this is God," could you believe it? Even if you wanted to believe that God existed, could you honestly believe that God exists because of a picture?

So then the person whips out a tape recorder and plays for you the voice of God. Now what? I think you'll find you have the same problem as with the picture.

So what's this tell you? Is it possible for someone to come running into a forum and say "God exists" and for us to be able to rationally accept it as proof? No.

Does that mean God can't exist? No. It just means you can't run around with Polaroids and pamphlets and expect people to believe you.

/rant

Originally Posted by Wolf

Think about it. If that person got frustrated and pulled out a picture he took during his "God sighting" what would you do with it? In today's world, if someone handed you a picture and said "this is God," could you believe it? Even if you wanted to believe that God existed, could you honestly believe that God exists because of a picture?

So then the person whips out a tape recorder and plays for you the voice of God. Now what? I think you'll find you have the same problem as with the picture.

That's actually a very intriguing point. With today's technology, fakery can provide evidence of just about anything. A good fake, is incredibly difficult to detect. I wonder how long it will be until we can't prove fakery at all.

If that becomes the case, then yes: If someone actually showed a real photo of a god, or played a recording of his voice, it would still prove nothing.

Gods aside, imagine what else we would never be able to disprove (or prove with fakes: murder, for instance).

You don't need high tech fakes to make someone guilty of crimes society views greater than murder. Planting child pornography on someone is a VERY easy way to send them to prison for life. And it's all too easy, and can't be traced back to the one that planted it (nor, for that matter, does anyone ever suspect).

If that doesn't get your heads reeling about the possibility of numerous people sent to prison based on forged evidence, nothing will.

Originally Posted by profahmfaw

If you faced a difficult problem which can not be solved or if you can not do anything possible like succeding in a test you expect to fail in it, Just say this word loud and you will solve it:

In The Name of Allah or in Arabic (Bism Ellah)

Well, world hunger and diseases are a difficult problem that I would REALLY like to solve. I said those words, and the problems are still there. I said those words over and over and over again, nada, ziltch, nothing happened.

So, why didn't anything happen?

Because God didn't want you to see anything happen, perhaps because you did not mean it in your heart? You can't just say something and expect it to happen. Words without meaning are words without truth, words without truth are lies, words of lies to God won't work.

"Thou shall not decieve..."

PS (Q) why don't you get an avatar?

So does this mean of all followers of Islam in this history of the planet that not a single one of them ever asked for peace or an end to hunger, and meant it?
This means that either prayer to Allah doesn't work, or that followers of Islam are evil, disgusting people because not a single one, ever, has asked for peace.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

So does this mean of all followers of Islam in this history of the planet that not a single one of them ever asked for peace or an end to hunger, and meant it?
This means that either prayer to Allah doesn't work, or that followers of Islam are evil, disgusting people because not a single one, ever, has asked for peace.

They can't be evil if they don't ask for peace. Prayer only works through Christ.

"No-one may enter the father but through me"

For prayer to work you have to accept Christ. And the more faith and deeds you have in God the more likely prayers are to come true. Science will never be able to prove prayer because they lack those prerequistes .

Thats why it does not work for Muslims or Jews, because they are the same. Its like running an OS system, software won't work unless you have the drivers!

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Because God didn't want you to see anything happen, perhaps because you did not mean it in your heart? You can't just say something and expect it to happen. Words without meaning are words without truth, words without truth are lies, words of lies to God won't work.

Are you serious? Do you actually think for a moment that I don't mean to end world hunger and diseases with "all my heart" (a blood pump). Those ARE words with meaning, they ARE words of truth. How do you assert they are lies?

I call upon every Christian, every Muslim and every Jew. I call upon each and every theist in the world to clasp their hands together and pray to their almighty gods to end world hunger and disease.

My first question with this request would be, why wouldn't every theist pray for such a thing? My second question would be, why didn't that mass prayer work?

PS (Q) why don't you get an avatar?

Why?

Originally Posted by svwillmer

They can't be evil if they don't ask for peace. Prayer only works through Christ.

For prayer to work you have to accept Christ. And the more faith and deeds you have in God the more likely prayers are to come true. Science will never be able to prove prayer because they lack those prerequistes .

Thats why it does not work for Muslims or Jews, because they are the same. Its like running an OS system, software won't work unless you have the drivers!

Then tell your fucking Christ asshole prick to end world hunger and disease. Will he? No, of course not.

Why? Because he is a myth.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

For prayer to work you have to accept Christ. And the more faith and deeds you have in God the more likely prayers are to come true.

Thats why it does not work for Muslims or Jews, because they are the same.

Then I ask you why, why is it just as big of a miracle when som jew family's first borne is cured for cancer, why I say, why.

And, more importantly, a comment like this:

Thats why it does not work for Muslims or Jews, because they are the same.

Is getting pretty close to just plain rascism. What kind of god are you working for here? Won't even help someone out just for being a Jew. Send him to hell for all eternity because he's a damned Jew.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Because God didn't want you to see anything happen, perhaps because you did not mean it in your heart? You can't just say something and expect it to happen. Words without meaning are words without truth, words without truth are lies, words of lies to God won't work.

Are you serious? Do you actually think for a moment that I don't mean to end world hunger and diseases with "all my heart" (a blood pump). Those ARE words with meaning, they ARE words of truth. How do you assert they are lies?

I call upon every Christian, every Muslim and every Jew. I call upon each and every theist in the world to clasp their hands together and pray to their almighty gods to end world hunger and disease.

My first question with this request would be, why wouldn't every theist pray for such a thing? My second question would be, why didn't that mass prayer work?

PS (Q) why don't you get an avatar?

Why?

Adds character :P

Get the drivers and you'll understand.

HOW THE BLUE F*%K CAN I EXPLAIN WHY PRAYER DOESN'T WORK FOR SOME AND IT DOES OTHERS!?!?!?!? I'M NOT GOD! YOU'RE A BIT DAFT ASKING ME THAT!

Also how is it being racist TvEye, I'll telll you why I've had a nasty response, because my comment is the most sense that I have ever made to you and it threatens you. If you have a problem with my opinion, fine just don't insult it, or I'll never give a shit or listen or respect your opinions ever again. I've tried to be understanding and even given metaphors to explain myself, how dare you insult me like that, and you say religion causes the problems. You've really upset me there TvEye, I had a deep respect for you as you were different from the others, and you've just thrown that out the window along with any other gaining respect and understanding I had for atheists. I really am upset by that TvEye.

If none of you wish to understand me in some way and keep calm even if what I say may offend you then simply ignore me because I don't want to hurt your feelings or enrage you. Please don't do that this is a community for intelligent discussion, I was trying to make my point valid as much as I could instead of trolling like a lot of religious people do on this forum, the second you get one who doesn't you rip his head off.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by svwillmer

They can't be evil if they don't ask for peace. Prayer only works through Christ.

For prayer to work you have to accept Christ. And the more faith and deeds you have in God the more likely prayers are to come true. Science will never be able to prove prayer because they lack those prerequistes .

Thats why it does not work for Muslims or Jews, because they are the same. Its like running an OS system, software won't work unless you have the drivers!

Then tell your fucking Christ asshole prick to end world hunger and disease. Will he? No, of course not.

Why? Because he is a myth.

DON'T YOU EVER CALL CHRIST AGAIN PLEASE. I'm going to have to pray for you now, yes pray, and I have not prayed in months. I'm praying to redeem your sorry ass. I love you that much.

There done. That took me ten minutes of prepearing and standard prayer language don't do it again I'd rather not keep having to do that. And nobody do it on purpose to get me to keep praying for you, I don't want to use my ace in the hole on you lot when I can use it to give myself the ability to help other people or use my prayer for someone who actually deserves help. Maybe if you stopped dissing God so much those who do pray could spend less time praying to help you and pray more to help those who need help.

Reply to this just as agressive as you did before and I'm done with you. I tried to be fair and respectful but you are not so why should I be?

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Also how is it being racist TvEye, I'll telll you why I've had a nasty response, because my comment is the most sense that I have ever made to you and it threatens you. If you have a problem with my opinion, fine just don't insult it, or I'll never give a shit or listen or respect your opinions ever again. I've tried to be understanding and even given metaphors to explain myself, how dare you insult me like that, and you say religion causes the problems. You've really upset me there TvEye, I had a deep respect for you as you were different from the others, and you've just thrown that out the window along with any other gaining respect and understanding I had for atheists. I really am upset by that TvEye.

A statement like this: "Thats why it does not work for Muslims or Jews, because they are the same." is very questionable. This does not reconcile with my concept of good.

I'll explain this, assuming a god does exist, since it makes it easier for me to type. If god embodies pure good, why would he refrain from helping someone in need, based purely on their religion? Would why Jews and Muslims burn in hell for all eternity, based purely on the fact that they follow a different religion.

Allow me to put it to you this way: Have you ever met a Buddhist monk? I can tell you that they are the most peaceful people you'll ever meet. These guys will not even harm an insect, netherlone another human. These are the type of people who deserve heaven more than anyone else.

Now, based solely on the fact that they are Buddhist, the Judeo-Christian god will not admit them to heaven, and, in fact, damn them to hell for eternity?

From my perspective, this is morally questionable. If belief in Jesus rather than a virtuous life is a prerequisite to heaven, then fine: reincarnate them.

But this: "Thats why it does not work for Muslims or Jews, because they are the same." ... From my perspective, that is a highly morally questionable position that god's taken right there (or, more accurately: the position you've assumed god has taken).

A Muslim whose newborn baby is dying deserves as much help as a Christian whose newborn baby is dying.

You are right but don't forget, my interperetation of Gods power is off, he may grant action to prayers from other religions. A muslim could say the same thing to me about prayer not working. I meant no offense by what I said, I simply theorised that what may be possible, of course religion is not a topic I'm conveying to all you atheists lightly. Nobody goes to hell in my belief, just sent back to repeat history until they turn good. I'm Buddhist too and follow the Noble Eightfold path as much as possible. I don't harm any creature, I tame what I say to the best of my ability etc etc. I can't explain to you the way God does things, I can only make guesses as logical as I can. Why you and (Q) as intelligent people cannot see that I am only human and can understand God as much as you can explain why these things happen. I'm only human I'm trying to explain things to which might be clearer than the ordinary trolling of some.

I am trying to explain and discuss with you to help you and I understand each other and for others to learn from this, unlike many others. I don't think that this warrants an offensive by you or (Q), I'm just trying to respond as best I can given my weak and inferior understanding of God and His will.

So wait....if I say those words, God does what I ask?

Wow. I didn't know yer version of God was a puppet to play with. :?



Then again, I'll bet there's been a lot of people who have shouted that out, begging for God to save their lives, and they were serious because they were just about to die, and God didn't do jack. But if what yer saying is true, God would have done something, because they said the magic words, and they were serious....

Does your religion know there are nuts like you running around making it sound foolish?

Originally Posted by svwillmer

There done. That took me ten minutes of prepearing and standard prayer language don't do it again I'd rather not keep having to do that. And nobody do it on purpose to get me to keep praying for you, I don't want to use my ace in the hole on you lot when I can use it to give myself the ability to help other people or use my prayer for someone who actually deserves help. Maybe if you stopped dissing God so much those who do pray could spend less time praying to help you and pray more to help those who need help.

Reply to this just as agressive as you did before and I'm done with you. I tried to be fair and respectful but you are not so why should I be?

Hahahaha. That's hilarious. You almost sound serious. Nice one.

If I wasn't nuts Wolf, it wouldn't work

I have a question: Believer A prays for the Republican candidate. Believer B prays for the Democratic candidate. Who wins?

The two cancel each other out and nothing happens. I guess :?

No-one wins the election? What about the candidate with the most votes?

Then the candidate wins. So you could say that there are those praying out there to end world hunger and those who pray not to (for some reason), so in effect God is not being cruel, but rather is treating all who follow Him equally.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Then the candidate wins. So you could say that there are those praying out there to end world hunger and those who pray not to (for some reason), so in effect God is not being cruel, but rather is treating all who follow Him equally.

Ok, let me get this straight. You're saying that there are theists who pray FOR world hunger and that your god condones these prayers?

Do you mean to tell us that rather than admitting prayer doesn't work, you have to make up such an utterly ridiculous scenario as that?

Jesus titty fucking Christ, man! Get a hold of your faculties!

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Then the candidate wins. So you could say that there are those praying out there to end world hunger and those who pray not to (for some reason), so in effect God is not being cruel, but rather is treating all who follow Him equally.

Ok, let me get this straight. You're saying that there are theists who pray FOR world hunger and that your god condones these prayers?

Do you mean to tell us that rather than admitting prayer doesn't work, you have to make up such an utterly ridiculous scenario as that?

Jesus titty fucking Christ, man! Get a hold of your faculties!

I'm getting through to you aren't I 8)

Originally Posted by svwillmer

I'm getting through to you aren't I

My turn...*cracks knuckles*

Yer saying that there are folks who pray for stuff, and others who don't, and so God chooses to do nothing because it appeases both parties...?

What a load of crap. Yer idea means God might as well not even exist. You've effectively eliminated God from everything.

But hold on, let's backtrack a second...

Person A prays for X.

Person B prays for -X.

But X already exists.

So God must have ignored Person B and done what Person A asked for.

The only exceptions would be if God wasn't around at the beginning...

Or God doesn't follow what you said he follows...

And if we take the scenario of world hunger, that means God implemented world hunger because of Person A's prayers.

So now yer God is not only loopy, but completely evil.



We'll wait quietly while you fiddle around and come back with another reinterpretation that was "recently made clear."

I'll put it this way, can your parents seem loving all the time when you were a child? Can they please both children when both want opposite things? Since God cannot let any of His children down, He has to do nothing because He does not want any of us hurt, which sounds strange I know, but the suffering of others may actually helping them in a way we cannot see. Thats why believers are meek, because we have no idea of the way of God and atheists have far less idea than we do. It may be that these things happen to test your faith, who knows. Would a parent make your life unhappy to teach you a lesson when you were young?

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Since God cannot let any of His children down, He has to do nothing because He does not want any of us hurt

Again, Person A prays for the republican candidate, Person B for the democratic candidate. By your argument, god does nothing, "the candidate with the most votes wins". I'd argue that the person with the most votes has to win anyway. That's how the democratic voting process works. But that's beside the point...

Let's say the democratic candidate wins. To Person B, it would appear that god did something. Proof that prayer works, eh. Person A is quite upset about all of this, because he really likes republicans. So one child has been let down.

If a god exists, he would exist as the laws of physics. The incredibly subtle factors which caused life to appear and evolve. He would not exist as an anthropomorphic man in the sky, indiscriminately firing down plagues of locusts and answering cries for help. That sounds less like a god, and more like an X-Man.

The paradox is most comical

Originally Posted by svwillmer

...the suffering of others may actually helping them in a way we cannot see.

A ridiculous construct of logic if there ever was one. It's so easy to say that as long as it's you who isn't the one suffering.

The ONLY positive aspect of disease and starvation is that science has been forced to step in and find cures for diseases and find better ways to feed people.

Therefore, SCIENCE has to ease the suffering YOUR god creates.

Is that what you meant by prayer working?

Originally Posted by (Q)

The ONLY positive aspect of disease and starvation is that science has been forced to step in and find cures for diseases and find better ways to feed people.

Disease and starvation are effective amoral agents of natural selection.

Ha. I figured it would be another round-about statement of the same thing, svwillmer.

You're still eliminating your God from the world, and in that line he might as well not even exist.

Not to mention that you didn't step up to answer the other part of my previous post, about how God could follow the rules you say he does, and yet X still happened.

Originally Posted by Wolf

Person A prays for X.

Person B prays for -X.

But X already exists.

So God must have ignored Person B and done what Person A asked for.

If God in fact did what you say he does, then X would never come into existence to begin with.

You're also saying that God does whatever people want because he doesn't want them to feel bad. It's so nice that God wants people to run around killing and hurting other people. I'm not saying he's supposed to stop it, but I didn't know he was so happy about it.

I think you need to rethink yer logic.

Anyone else got any loony paradoxes?

I have got some thing loony.

I am an atheist, and I do use blasphemy to humor my self. Now I don't know where it is writen, but I have heard something like if I talk blashpmy I must cut of my tunge and I figure if I wright blasphmy I must cut of my hands, but if I were to be come a christian when I have lost the ability to speek and to wright. Would god then restor my speach and wrighting abilitys, if I prayd for it (silent no fold prayrs ofcorse)

hmm, I wonder.

Another good example of stupid religious texts and stupid religious laws.

That's why I'm definitely NOT religious, even though I might be faithful.

Originally Posted by Pikkhaud

I have got some thing loony.

I am an atheist, and I do use blasphemy to humor my self. Now I don't know where it is writen, but I have heard something like if I talk blashpmy I must cut of my tunge and I figure if I wright blasphmy I must cut of my hands, but if I were to be come a christian when I have lost the ability to speek and to wright. Would god then restor my speach and wrighting abilitys, if I prayd for it (silent no fold prayrs ofcorse)

hmm, I wonder.

Do you misspell everything on purpose, suck horribly at reading/writing or is English your 2nd language? Or are you trying to be funny in the context of your post...really can't tell

The biggest problem with believing God is that it is very paradoxical. I can't answer your question Wolf, what am I? God?

He's norwegian. Pikkaud, not god. Although i truly believe there's a little norwegian in all of us. And since god is within us all, god must be norwegian.

Originally Posted by TvEye

..., god must be norwegian.

does this mean that god turns into father christmas on christmas eve ?

No, but he's with him in spirit. The spirit's name is krampus.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

The biggest problem with believing God is that it is very paradoxical. I can't answer your question Wolf, what am I? God?

Oh there's nothing wrong with God. It's your explanation that sucks. You've tried to explain God's actions by saying "God does stuff, unless he doesn't." I know you're intelligent enough to realize that's a dumb answer, dude. Come on, show a little respect for what you believe in and try harder. :?

Originally Posted by TvEye

The spirit's name is krampus.

Leave ol' Rup out of it, aw'ight?

I am trying hard! Do you honestly think I can get anywhere near explaining God and how He does things?! I haven't a chance! Me explain God thats a bit big headed of me to actually think I can. I'm trying the best I can with my weak and inferior knowledge to His, and suffice to say I think I'm doing pretty well.