I'm not going to answer fro twhy but it makes perfect sense that we could logically believe in God(s) but be unable to logically prove it. Consider as rational beings we are aware of both the passage of time and out mortality. Rationally that would lead us to question where we came from and what happens to us when we die. As rational beings we inevitably fear the end of that rationality and if physics can't provide a better explanation naturally look to a metaphysical explanation.
I would tell him if he believes that it is fine with me. If he continually tried to push his newfound beliefs on me or others I would tell him to knock it off. His five year old sister is being proselytized by her father's (my girlfriend's ex-husband) new girlfriend so we are getting the "Jesus loves us" and "Jesus is waiting for us in Heaven" talk from the little girl now. She asked me if I believed in God and I said no but if believing in God makes her happy then she should.
Let me see if I get it right (because I am one of the "self-proclaimed agnostics). I think there could be a God. I'm not saying there is one, nor am I saying there isn't. I haven't seen God with my own eyes, nor has science proven everything related to the creation of the universe, so there really is no ultimate answer to the question "is there a God?". Until there is a proven answer, I reserve judgement; I simply acknowledge that possibility. I frown on those who claim one belief is correct over another. Am I agnostic?
Kind of how I feel....but I believe there is a God, a creator.....just wired that way. It is religion I take issue with, I respect people's right to their faith, it is a personal matter, but I personally have little faith in the concept of worship or religion. DD
Yeah, I guess the difference is that I say "hey, there could be a God... don't know any way else that infinitely small/dense mass expanded for the Big Bang" whereas some people say "God made that tiny mass." Either way, we don't know!
I think you've jumped into a conversation and taken it in a completely different direction than it was heading. That's fine but when you enter the thread by admittedly misquoting me and then framing the discussion in a different manner it's a little disingenuous. For the sake of the discussion up until you entered, I think everyone involved understood logic = reason = sound judgment. I'm not a big philosophy guy so I have to use the definition of "logic" from the dictionary. Please give me a defintion(s) and I'll see if I can keep up.
It depends. If he joined a group of Christians that were pushy in their beliefs I'm sure those words would come up. Stop being coy and get to the point you're trying to make.
That's the pejorative sense of the term, and not wholly inaccurate. Logic, human reason, etc. Sound judgement is more of a conclusion rather than a descriptive term so I'd leave that out of your definition of logic. My comments were based off of you making that claim in several different threads, and I just wanted to make sure that you knew that's really a contested statement.
You sound like one to me. Hey, I feel the same way. I don't know everything there is to know so I can't say that I know God doesn't exist. Of course, I feel the same way about Santa Claus. However, I do BELIEVE (strongly) that God (as the word is usually defined) does not exist. So I'm both an atheist and an agnostic. The reason I use the label "atheist" as opposed to "agnostic" is because the question everyone asks is "do you believe in God?" and not "do you know literally 100% for sure that god does not exist?" that make any sense?
Just going by what my good friend, Merriam-Webster, told me. It's a true statement based on the definitions of the word "logic" and the definition of the word "god" I know.
Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. I'll personalize it a bit: I've had too many experiences to simply write off any kind of spirituality and be an atheist. It goes against my personal concept of body, mind, and soul. I believe there is something out there, and I believe that something to be generally benevolent. Call it "God" or whatever name you want, as it makes no difference to me. I find giving names to various deities to be of little use, as is any particular form or concept of worship. I claim neither faith nor disbelief in God as the religions of the world would have me do, and I think that it is impossible to prove me, or anyone else, right OR wrong on this. In the end, all I have is me, myself, my thoughts and perceptions, and how I treat those I care about.
Merriam-Webster is for chumps Dave. You're going to want to upgrade to an Oxford English Dictionary account if you want to participate in discussions with the big boys... From the OED definition of logic... 1. a. The branch of philosophy that treats of the forms of thinking in general, and more especially of inference and of scientific method. (Prof. J. Cook Wilson.) Also, since the work of Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), a formal system using symbolic techniques and mathematical methods to establish truth-values in the physical sciences, in language, and in philosophical argument. The proper scope of this department of study has been and is much controverted, and books on ‘logic’ differ widely in the range of subjects which they include. The definition formerly most commonly accepted is ‘the art of reasoning’; for various modern definitions see the later quots. At all times the vulgar notion of ‘logic’ has been largely that it is a system of rules for convincing or confounding an opponent by argument. In the Middle Ages logic (or DIALECTIC, q.v.) was one of the three sciences composing the ‘trivium’, the former of the two divisions of the seven ‘liberal arts’. There's much more to this than some simple word game you concocted to show Christians on internet message boards how dumb they are.
Sorry for being coy. You stated earlier: Now in that post you state "any Christian" which tells me that your view of Christianity is that it is crazy and cultish on par with Scientology which is why I'm asking you if your potential stepson where to become a Christian if that is what you would continue to believe to and if you woudl tell him that. My point is that you rightly point out that atheists do get grief in this society and are warning your stepson about that possibility but at the sametime I think you might need rethink why in your case that happens. It seems to me that your own attitude might be contributing to that. You have argued for tolerance but your view appears to be anything but that.
just thought i'd point out, in the quote of Dave's you posted, nowhere does he indicate he is calling anyone crazy or cultish, but rather that others are saying that about Scientology. Frankly, the part you quoted doesn't have Dave espousing any views of his own, unless completely indirectly. He is just talking about his observations of Christian reaction to Scientology, especially as it in some ways those reactions contradict their own beliefs. I don't feel as strongly as some of the agnostic/atheist's in this thread. I am Jewish by birth, was Bar Mitzvah'd but pretty much stopped after that. I do not care for the "religious" aspects of it, but do have a hard time putting my Judaism aside completely as it, in a much bigger way than Christianity and certain other religions, is also a lot about heritage and culture, as opposed to faith, belief systems, etc. That said, I would consider myself agnostic, and I think while Dave's views might color's other non-agnostics reaction to him, I don't think his views are really that out of line - he seems to be passionate about them, but almost by definition they are very methodical, logical, thought out opinions, and the reactions he's seeing is as much fuel to fire his opinions as it is because of them. Kind of like Lynus' early post where he made it out as if atheists / agnostic's are paranoid about a massive Christian world take-over. No, on the contrary, that position is really the reactionary one. Rather, in a thread about creation, creationism, Christianity and religion, we are simply stating our views, and why we hold them...
now that is a leap of faith LOL (no bias there). people believe what they want to believe and we are in serious need of a paradigm shift. hell, i fall in LOVE all the time and i am a total and utter atheist. god ≠ truth, atheism ≠ nihilism
I was actually pointing out what I perceived to be hostility toward Christians as a whole and my comment was admittedly hyperbole. I even added a "sheesh" at the end but deleted it because I thought it detracted from my point that if Catholicism can take such progressive and open stances and make it work within their dogma, then other non-Catholic Christians can take a similar stance as well.
Not directly but he clearly sees no substantive difference between Christianity and Scientology so in his opinion they are both crazy and cultish and he is essentially rubbing that in the face of Christians. He even recognizes this by pointing out that he is going to get punched in the face that this is a deliberate provocation. With all due respect I would say its a conceit to claim that atheistic / agnostic views are logical and well thought out. I've found atheists can be just as narrow and reactionary in regard to views as religious. For that matter a completely materialistic view of existence is by nature narrow. In regard to adding fuel to fire his opinions that would also appear to me to be a reactionary response and not necessarily a well thought out response. The counter response is also a reactionary position since I'm not exactly seeing the self-proclaimed atheists / agnostics engaging in a open debate regarding their own positions but just a restatment of why the hold those beliefs and how those who hold others are illogical and / or idiotic. I do not subscribes to Judeo-Christian beliefs and have debated many of those who holds those beliefs on a variety of topics such as Evolution but at the same time I have often found those who espouse athieism to be as dogmatic as any of those who are religious. While I might rationally agree with how and why they hold those beliefs I find the need at times to rub that in the face of those who hold religious beliefs to be both disrespectful and unproductive.
Pretty much what I suspected from the beginning. You're the one playing words games by taking what common sense should tell you is the working, practical definition of a word and replacing it. You didn't, at any point, define your position other than to say you "chose God because you believe in love" whatever that is supposed to mean. Could this have all been avoided if I said "it is unjustifiable to believe in God" and if not tell me how to phrase it so as not to bring down the wrath of the Semantics Gods again.
