For those of you who do not believe in a god
 

Are you agnostic or athiest?

This is a tricky question, and it is due to misconceptions and language.

My belief is summed up reasonably accurately by the following statement:
There is no compelling arguments or evidence that would lead a rational person to postulate the existence of a God.

Now, what you want to label such a belief is a matter of preference.
Personally, I prefer the term atheist, because it makes apparent the fact that I am confident in my belief and am not merely fence-sitting. I believe that any form of theism is irrational.

That being said I fully accept the logical possibilty of the existence of God. I do not claim to know that God does not exist.
I also accect the possibility of the existence of invisible pink unicorns, and teacups orbitting the sun. But just because they are possible does not mean that a belief in them is justified. There is literally an infinitude of arbitrary things that we could dream up, which have the logical possibility of existence. Do we really need to to remain "agnostic" about them all? Surely a much more appropriate and sensible way to live your life is to say "until you can provide me with some kind of evidence for the existence of X, I refuse to believe in X", and to live your life as if there was no such thing as X.

Otherwise it seems you will be living your life, constantly bearing in mind the possible exitence of an infinite number of contingent things!

I'm Agnostic.

Athetists believe there is sufficient evidence to prove there is NOT a God or similar entity.

As I understand it:
Agnostic = questioning the existance of god.
Atheist = denying the existance of god.

I am an atheist. I firmly believe that God is a fairy tale...a myth. Much the same as Zeus, Santa Claus and WMD. (OK...that last part was unnecessary...but funny.) I can't prove that God doesn't exist, anymore than I can prove to my son that the monster under his bed doesn't exist. I know that it's not there...but I'll never convince him of that. Not until he's older, and mature enough, to see for himself that the monster...just isn't there.

Atheists believe that god does not exist. To the point that they believe it an absolute truth, he cannot exist and there is no possiblity of it. Agnostic is someone who believes that there is not enough evidence for or against the existence of God, therefore he cannot be proven or disproven.

Now for the second part of my question for those of you who are agnostic. You do not deny that there is a chance that God can exist. If this is the case would you rather believe in God and be wrong or disbelieve in God and be wrong. Let's consider the ramifications of both. If you believe in God and are wrong then when you die you are dead and there is nothing else. You may have "waisted" some of your life believing in God. Now if you disbelieve in God and are wrong after you die you would spend eternity in pain and suffering.

there comes a time when every agnostic must decide whether the probability of a god existing is high or not. if it is not for that individual, like myself, then a decision on how to live one's life must be made. that decision, like every other in real life scenarios is made off of probability and not absolute proof. therefore, i call myself an atheist because the probability of a god existing seems limited to me. after all, believers believe, they don't have proof. non-believers don't need proof in the same way. they just don't believe.

I think you're missing a piece of the puzzle -- i for one cannot force myself to believe in anything. If someone who is an agnostic deep down devotes him/herself to a chosen religion he/she is falling slowly into the hypocrite category. If, on the other hand this individual actually believes in the religion they have joined then he/she is no longer an agnostic -- you simple cannot have it both ways.

I have many times wished that i could put my faith in a religion -- it seems easier, sometimes it helps to build a strong support network/community, etc. but i CAN'T i have too many nagging questions to ever fully support any religion.

if you are going to operate under the assumption that sooner or later one has to choose, you land in this place--pascal's "wager"--so you might as well read the actual argument:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

which runs through a series of flaws as well, any one of which could be applied to the above comments on agnostics.

Bait-and-switches such as this is the very reason why I call myself an atheist, despite the fact that some people would insist that technically I am an agnostic.

As for Pascal's wager: I posted a parody of it quite a while back and was lamblasted for attacking a straw man. hmmm...
CSflim's Wager

I think your premise is off here. If I disbelieve in God and am wrong, we still don't know what kind of God it is. If it's the vengeful and mean God of the Old Testament, then you're probably right. If it's the kinder, gentler God of the New Testament, then he might forgive my lack of faith and instead judge me on my deeds. If it's the God of some other religion, or some God we haven't even heard about yet, then who knows what He might do. He might chastise the alleged believers for believing in the wrong God.

So I'm agnostic. I think the existence of God is unlikely. And I think that if there is a God, it's largely futile for us to try to understand His nature.

This is not a bait and switch, i'm mearly trying to provoke thought.

As many of you I used to be agnostic. I struggled with the idea of god a lot. Then through some occurences in my life i found faith and have found strength in that faith. I'm mearly trying to get you to think about the possiblity of the existance of a God. Not any particular god but that somewhere there is some being out there.

To me it seems strange that so many different cultures that never or rarely interacted all had/have very simalar belifes. The native americans believed and a great "Walken" (holy spirit), tribes throughout the world came up with beliefs of their own. They may all be different but they all have a lot of simalarities.

To me in the end there were to many coincidences within history, the world, and my life to discount his existance.

I don't see it as necessary to declare a position on a subject I consider unimportant. That said, I do not "believe in a god" and I am also neither agnostic or atheist. I don't think one is bound to define oneself according to categories made up by someone else if one prefers not to do so.

athe·ist

one who believes that there is no deity

de·i·ty

a god or goddess


Yup, I'm atheist.

sixate, we can kinda tell from your signature :D

and yes, i'm atheist ever since reading Nietzsche :P

ps. when i read the post title, i totally thought i'm going to get something like

"you're all going to hell" post :D :crazy: :crazy: would have been funny

i can pretty much say "without hope, you are nothing"

whether it is hope that your beliefs are true. or it is hope that everyone else is wrong. there is no such thing as wasting time on something that gives you a sense of purpose. even if your purpose is to be athiest.

Actually you've got that backwards. Old Testament God was biased, but fair. He'd judge you on your deeds. New Testament God is nice, but unless you believe in Jesus being your savior you go to hell.

Thank you braindamage351. I forgot that the New Testament God is the one who let us know that there is no way to heaven but through Jesus Christ. I stand correted but my point is unaffected by the difference.

Religion A and religion B both have concepts of an all powerful Creator. Now religion A says that God told them to write that believers of any religion but religion A are going to burn for eternity when they die. But religion B says that people who don't believe in religion B's God burn in hell forever. How are you going to pick one illogical belief over another with an argument "why not believe in case you are wrong"? If you choose the wrong one you might as well have chosen none at all! What if God B looks more lightly upon those that choose to believe nothing instead of those relgious A heretics?

Taking your argument this direction, it seems more logical to believe nothing at all.

TheKak sums it up pretty well. The old Pascal's wager defense against both agnostics and atheists only really works if there was only one monotheistic religion and the choice was either it or nothing. But with thousands of religions available in the phone book, my resp[onse is to be agnostic.

I've always defined agnostic as the following:
In essense, you can have all your holy books, rituals, holidays, beliefs, symbols, icons, and holy art. But in the end, it's all just theory. No proof for or against.

Or you can look at the big picture of all the religions and go from there. There is a reason I consider myself non-denominational, there is a reason I respect Budism, Hinduism, ect.

respect them all you like but almost all religions (Buddhism is a notable exception) have a set rule that says "believe in our version of god or go to hell, go directly to hell do not pass go do not collect angel wings."

given that there are an infinite number of religions all with the same statistical chance of being right you're still in the same boat as the atheists -- chances are if any one of the religions is right we're all going to hell. see ya there.

This is where I sit, but I can't find a definition of "agnostic" that actually fits that phrasing :p

I believe that God is a closed system--the most abstract concept imaginable. I've had some odd experiences involving religion, but I don't strictly consider them to be religious experiences. I think there are little-understood resources of the human body and mind that could explain apparent miracles--that religious fervor could be a catalyst, not a conduit. I think the field of biopsychology is poised to explore and explain just as the astronomy and physics have--showing us that, no, the Earth is not flat, nor is it (or the Sun) the center of the Universe.

Depends on your definition of God.

If God is defined as the creator and/or the omnipotent being then I would be an atheist since I find those attributes to be completely nonsensical.

However if you define God as a great being that may have created us, holds a key to the afterlife, judges us or any other attribute we give to our deities then I am an agnostic.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe what-so-ever in a god. All beings have believed in some sort of god since the start of man having a thought process, and science has always disproved their existence. It's almost like the theory of the world being flat. Everyone believes it until science disproves it.

Unless "god" means "luck" then I dont' believe in a god. I think we're just bacteria that was formed by the lucky combining of elements at the same time.

Now, by me being atheist, I don't think that religion is completely useless. I think that some people need something to believe in to get through the day, or hard times.

Others' beliefs in a God probably have a lot to do with the world not going into total anarchy. People think they'll go to hell if they do anything bad, so they just don't do it...

I HATE people who kill or start wars because of religion. To me, if there actually *was* a god, would he enjoy his creations mass-murdering others because they didn't believe in him or believing in a different form of him? I don't think so...

I don't believe in the God of books, as they are subject to someone elses interpretation, I can accept that which I feel though. You may call it whatever you want.

tecoyah, feelings aren't exactly proof, nor are they very reliable... :)

(Atheist, in case everyone didn't yet know.)

Agnostic i guess. If there is a god and he really wanted us to pay him any attention then he wouldn't be so elusive. If there is a god then i'm keeping him happy by not paying him any attention and if there isn't a god then i'm not wasting my time by wondering if there's a god all the time. I just don't think its worth wasting my short life pondering a question which is never going to be answered (or doesnt want to be answered) before i die. There could be thousands of gods who all have an IQ of 25 for all i know.

Agnostic. I'm undecided.

Um, that's BS. Why would I get sent to hell for being human? You can't create me, introduce loads of science and technology AND simultaneously give me this story about a mythical being in the sky that created everything, who has yet to show proof of his existence. You simply can't do that, it's not fair. And if god is like that, then he's a shitty god.

That logic also pretty much discredits all religion. So what if the "right" religion was the Jewish religion? Or what about Buddhism? If Buddhism is the right religion, then all Christians and Catholics and everyone else is automatically damned for eternity? Not quite...

Vice versa, if Christians think their religion is the right one, then all Buddhists go to hell?! Wow, if that's the case, then the christian god is horrible and most certainly not a god I'd want to spend eternity with!

If god was truly compassionate, he'd understand the fact that we're human and by nature, we might not make the right choice. I couldn't possibly go to hell for that. It's not *my* fault I don't know what to believe in! I can't be punished for that.

Talking about this just makes me doubt religion even more, haha. It's so aburd.. these random "rules".

Actually, I was baptised so.. I don't know what that means, but I'm assuming it means I'm saved regardless. It wasn't my choice, I was 9 months .. so if Buddhism is the right religion, then I'm screwed either way.

Like I said in another thread about porn and sin, religion is a giant mindfuck and you're damned either way. It's a pointless cosmic game and I don't like the fact I'm a part of it.

that's pretty much where i'm at.


you seem, to me, to be a little "preachy" for just being non-denominational. if you used to be agnostic, then you probably know how much the rest of us non-god'ers dislike people trying to convert us.

that being said, if you look at the cultures of the ancient western world, they all interacted a lot and share many of the same ideas and myths, just re-written. the idea of a god or spirit fathers being found in cultures all over the world (even the more remote ones) isn't all the odd either. at some point, people started questioning where we came from, how thigns work, and where we went when we died. at one point things like the sun and rivers were gods (ancient egypt), the gods had qualities of nature (zeus with his thunderbolts), or the "spirit fathers" took animal shapes (life giving food) (native americans). even floods show up in different cultures around the world, both sides of the oceans. but that doesn't mean the biblical flood was real. most ancient cultures started off in river valleys/basins which would flood every year, sometimes causing terrible damage. so it's not surprising that those would end up in the myths and collective memories of those cultures, which would evolve as time went on and the people and cultures adapted and grew.

so most things seem much more coincedental and circumstantial than anything. nothing really points to "god" for me.

CoachAlan... great way to put it. Frankly, I personally believe in a greater force. I don't even know that such an entity could be classed as a "being". I simply don't believe that humans have the ability to understand anything so great (as with the universe, which is perverse since I'm going into Astrophysics, but still...). Agnostics probably have it the most correct of anyone. I'm personally not agnostic, nor atheist, though my religious beliefs are not particularly popular practice, I believe in my own spirituality. However, my belief will only get me to the end of my life. Beyone that, anyone's faith or lack thereof is more than likely useless.

I'm with xeph... I acknowledge the existence of a greater being (god, goddess, purple cow with wings and platform goldfish boots??) that is above us, which we will never understand. So I guess I am neither agnostic nor athiest, since I believe in a diety... but yet not Christian or any of the other major religious sects...

Come to think of it, what the heck category do I fit into?

My mistake....didn't realize I was asked what I could prove....only what I believed.

Forget categories, just be yourself and let those who obsess over categorising do the pointless thinking :thumbsup:

Atheist, what's on my mind has pretty much been said by others.

I did not try to be "preachy" at all, i am simply asking some questions. If that is being preachy then what are people doing who proclaim in every thread that mentions God at all that they don't believe in God, or that it is one giant fairytail, ect? To me that seems preachy but in the going against God instead.

I've noticed there are a number of people on this board that have to add "they don't believe in god" to every thread, even threads addressed specifically to believers. To me these people are just as bad as the people who feel they need to add they believe in God in every conversation.

I have a theory about people that do this from both sides and it is that they are actually uncertain about what they believe so they have to constantly tell themselfs and everyone around them their beliefs in hope of convincing themself of what they want to believe.

If you want examples of what i'm talking about read StormBerlin's thread on pure motives and see how many people proclaimed they don't beleive in God when the belief of God wasn't even part of the question she was asking. It was a question addressed to believers.

How many people posted in this thread "I believe in god therefore this question is mute."?

rekna,
you opened the thread with a simple question, are you agnostic or atheist? and that's all well and good. but then you bust out pascal's wager on us. my impression is that you sandbagged the thread. i've had more than enough converstaions in college start out innocently like that only to have the person bust out and try to convert me. if you're asking us what we are and why, just because you're curious, fine. but that's not how it came off to me. that just happens to be the way i read it.

Pascal's wager is great and all, but you can't just randomly decide to believe in something.

You have to deep deep down actually believe in it, or at least, that's what I would think. You can't exactly keep a poker face and say "yeah, I believe in god" when in your MIND you aren't certain.

I understand the whole "ok, I guess I'll believe to avoid eternal damnation", but you can't just up and believe something.

Do you still get "punished" for that? If so, why? That doesn't make any sense.

I really would love to see the verse in the bible (or any other religious book) that states one will go to hell for being undecided.

Couldn't one just be AWARE that the diety exists? It's too much of a game, otherwise. Millions of people follow different religions, and only one of them can be right?

Stompy, my point exactly (See above) do churches really want people in their pews faking it?

I know you can't just believe in something. I'm wanted to know how many of you had considered the difference between agnostic and athiest because so many people don't know the diffrence and there is a huge one. I was just wanted to get you to think about the differences between them.

When wondering about the existence of God, it is important to note that there is no conclusive evidence to it's existence. That said, we have to look at what evidence there is and make judgements that way. We'll never be totally sure, but we may be able to form decisions. Pretty much, the evidence in support for God's existence is in personal experience. Since time immemorial, humans have individually formed a spiritual bond with some sort of force. This has happened independently across time and cultures. Some call it nirvana, some call it the Holy Spirit, but the accounts are similar. Something is going on here. At its heart, religion is supposed to be about fostering this spiritual link. However, like any tool used by humans, we can use it improperly and for ill. Religion is not inherently bad or good; it is all in the hands of the user.

So, who/what is God? That much may never be known. Is it the personal entity that created everything as in the judeo-christian belief, or is it the impersonal force binding all as in the Buddhist belief? Is it a biological firing of neurons that makes me feel good when I attempt to commune with a higher force? I don't know and it really doesn't matter, for it works. Those who have truly acted in the interest of spirituality have done great things, regardless of religion.

I don't need to worry about afterlife or inconsistencies in a creation story, because I feel that it really is irrelevant when thinking about God. It is about that connection in the here and now that is important, not any silly debate that will never by resolved.

RoboBlaster. Yes and no.You posit that the evidence for a god are based in personal experience. I would not deny that claim, but I would need to ask what sorts of experience are permissible. I doubt when can (Rationally) use 'warm fuzzy feelings' as any sort of claim. I think if we need to be stricter with ourselves than that. Anecdotes (as found in the holy books of any and all religions) do not pass the test either. What we need is independently verifiable tests that can be repeatedunder laboratory conditions.

I understand that this may sound harsh to some, but I would not expect anyone to believe in any theory without good supporting evidence - and this is the best way to get it.

I guess you had better call me an atheist.

Perhaps I was a bit unclear. Because any conclusive findings are impossible under strict scientific experimentation, no one can rationally come to the conclusion that God definitely exists. Does this mean that one cannot rationally entertain the notion that it is possible? What I was getting at was yes, it is possible.

I'm not following you RoboBlaster. Because it's impossible to prove his existence, he must therefore exist? What kind of conclusion is that?

God is so many different things to so many people that he exists only as a concept there for comfort. Like a teddy bear or a blanket. There is no way to rationally justify his existence in any other location but the minds of people who believe. If we could divide the world into two planes of reality where one plane housed all of the believers and one housed the non-believers, you could ascertain that God only exists in the former. However, we are all one the same planet.

Like light and dark, one's absense means the presence of the other. Since there are many people who do not believe in God, and the rest cannot prove to them that he does exist, I am left with the conclusion that the impression that people have of God is totally and completely in their head. He does not actually exist.

There are many things we can't prove to be true that we consider a truth or don't question in the world. God cannot be proven to be true or false. This is the problem.

Halx you sound very scientific where things needed to be proven to you. From this I assume you believe in evolution (which I to believe in). So where did first life come from? Do you thing somehow some chemicals happend to mix just right to spontaniously create life? If so why haven't scientists been able to recreate this or prove it is even remotely possible? Are you willing to blindly accept the mixture theory without any proof, the theory is tenous at best.

First life came from somewhere but where? Everything has a beginning where did mans come from? Now I know you're going to ask where is God's beginning and honestly I can't tell you. I can't explain that which i cannot understand. But the idea of life on earth being created without any help from anywhere seems to far fetched to me. I want to see scientists create life from nothing but a few chemicals.

And where did these chemicals come from? Where did energy come from? What are the origins of the universe? These are questions that scientists can't answer but yet the big bang is considered fact by so many. But what caused the big bang? What was before the big bang?

When science can answer these questions i'll be amazed.

Welshbyte, that's some brilliant life advice. I like you :D

Come over some time!! Let me show you how this works. Seriously. Insofar as life creation goes.

As to the big bang, your argument shows a misunderstanding of how this works. The problem lies in your seeing space and time as seperate entities, unrelated and non-dependent. Time simply does not exist outside of space. To ask whatr happened before the big bang (space) is also to ask what happened before time. Clearly nonsensical.

I imagine though, that you are trying to make some sort of 'first-cause' argument. If so then I doubt that that illogic of this will faze you. The biggest problem, of course,with first cause is that it is infinitely regressible. That is to say that it can go back and back forever (trust me, I wrote my thesis on something similar - in philosophy no less). First cause is ultimatelyan argument that brings its own destruction.

There was a spark that caused the big bang, what caused that spark? We dont know, but until we do you can not prove God does not exist or never existed, (I am starting to realize i am a deist.)

"First cause is ultimately an argument that brings its own destruction." Please elaborate I'm interested in your insight to this statement.

evolution doesn't have anything to do with the beginning of life. it has to do with how life evolved and developed after it started. also, scientist have managed to make proteins in experiments trying to recreate the primordial goo. don't forget that we're still in relative techonological infancy. the difference between what we could do 50 years ago and present day will be small compared to the advances we'll be able to make in 50 years. just because the beginnings of life haven't been recreated yet, that doesn't mean it won't some day be done.

basically, it sounds to me like you're saying "i can't think of anything else to explain this, and while science has explanations, they havne't been succesfully proven in lab tests, so it must be god." have you ever thought, maybe it's not god, things just happened the way they happened, and one day, many many years from now after we're all dead, humanity will find all the answers through science?

What i'm saying is if science is going to hinge all of it's beliefs on these theorys which require many leaps like life spontaniously creating itself without any help whatsoever then i'm just as well off believing god had a role in the creation. Science can't recreate it but even if they can it is taking them a long time to recreate it in a lab with that specific goal and you expect me to believe that just happend on its own? When it comes to creation science asks us to make many leaps and bounds. When you compare it to creation with a hand of God involved it seems much more plausable and the answer is much simpler. So use okkums razor.

You do know that to ask for the proof of non-existence is nonsensical right?

First cause brings about its own destruction because it can be regressed infinitely. If you posit a god as first cause you then force yourself into looking for a first cause for the god....ad infinitum

Rekna, are you not satisfied with not having an answer for everything? One of the basic traits of the human psyche is the need to be correct, so it's understandable for people to adapt a belief system that explains everything neatly for them. "God created and runs it all."

I for one relish the fact that I do not know everything. Did you know in the mid-late 1800's the US Patent Office filed to be shut down because they believed that everything that could be invented had already been? Imagine that. There are many things that we do not know, but are on the verge of discovering.

The belief in God is not logical to me. It seems like a shortcut that leads to nowhere. It's like a garden trellis, dictating the pattern that which the ivy grows. I for one want to see it grow wild, wherever it wants, to venture anywhere it can, not just up the wall.

Just because there is no answer one is justified in giving, does not mean that one is justified in giving whatever answer one will.

But yet you seem to relish in the fact that you *know* God does not exist.

I know what I know. I learn things as they present themselves to me. I have rationalized to you the basis of my knowledge of god's (lack of) existence. What more could you ask for?

I'm not the one claiming something exists that cannot be proven.

The period of time humans have experimented with electro-chemical reaction is currently measured in decades. In that time we have made the basis of RNA (tholins) just by chance. In the early 80s'. Carl Sagan wanted to see what the atmosphere of an early Earth would do if Zapped by lightning. The result was an organic compound now called Tholins. These compounds when mixed in a liquid combine to form something very much like RNA. The Earth (Nature if you will) has had the better part of 4,000,000,000,000 years to experiment, in a laboratory significantly larger than Dr. Sagans. If we understand the nature of chemical reaction, it is not hard to accept that the likelihood of some level of self replication, over a four billion year timeframe is relatively good.
That said, the likelihood of some all powerful dude, yanking the rib from a guy, and turning it into a woman would fail under the Razor theory you suggest we follow.

What's kinda funny is when you ask someone who believes in god if they believe there's a flying space creature hiding in the shadows Jupiter. They'll most likely answer no.

Why believe in god, but not the flying space creature? Can you disprove the flying space creature's existence?

The thing is, the human mind finds comfort in numbers. If millions of people worldwide suddenly believed in this flying space creature, then guess what would happen? People would start believing. It's all mental.

Proof of this can be found in scientology. This man, L. Ron Hubbard, takes a random story and convinces people it's true. Something about an intergalactic war on earth billions and billions of years ago, yadda yadda, psychologists are bad because it hurts your thetans, etc etc. I think that in itself proves how gullible people are. Can I prove that this intergalactic war didn't exist? No, but can you prove there isn't a flying space creature behind Jupiter? "Do you think I'm stupid for believing in the flying space creature? Well, I think you're stupid for believing in scientology!"

IMO, religion is the greatest illusion in the history of the universe. The more science matures, the more things are ruled out. For example, if a scientific theory is created or a discovery is made, the church will actually rationalize with scientists like, "OK, you can have that theory, we'll agree with you there, but we're sticking with THIS one." C'mon now..

All the reports over time about the euphoric feeling that people get as they die or come close to it... was often believed to be that of a heaven or god, but later found out to be the release of endorphins as your body begins to shut down. Those endorphins make you hallucinate. Of course you will see things like dead relatives, or have the feeling of floating.

Most people think of god as a creator.. but if anything, if I were to believe in a "god", I picture it more as the mere existence of energy and activity of the universe, which, to me, is alive. It's doing something. Stuff is going on. Galaxies are being created, black holes are devouring matter..

But then again, might be pure randomness and particle reaction. Who knows. The simple logical aspect of it all is there is no proof and there never will be.

I can agree with that. It always interests me how religious folk get so uptight with me when I tell them I am my own God. I am responsible for my good fortunes as well as my mistakes. When I achieve something worthy of praise, I thank myself. When I fuck up, I take responsibility for it. When my fortunes change, I look within myself for answers, not something else. Some will say that this is an example of God doing his good work. It is. It's me.

I understand that belief in God is not logical. Living one's life in a manner dedicated to pleasing said God is also not logical, particularly if God doesn't even exist. And if God doesn't exist, then it is, quite frankly, a big fat waste of time to believe in God. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

All of us waste our time with all sorts of crap all the time. We don't see it that way ourselves, but there are always others who do. That doesn't make it any less important to us.

I do not live in a manner that is 100% logical. I do not believe life to be logical or, in fact, follow any sort of logical path whatsoever. And I think there is a lot more to this existence than merely what can be proven by human minds and their logic.

a machine speaks
 

CSflim

This is a very strong statement and I do not mean to pick it apart. Throughout my years, I have come across many a weary soul being depressed or stressed or just plain angry at the world. One of the easiest answer to these problems has been God, which I find to be a perfectly good and rational reason to believe in God. I am agnostic. I have faith and beliefs without a God being necessary, so I do not need to believe in him but others do. They can be too weak emotionally and mentally to deal with this festering world and even if there is not a God their beliefs sheild them enough to continue living.

People say there is no evidence of God, people say there is evidence there is no God, people say that God is a prehistoric idea used and abused by others and is irrelevent.
I say, explain all you see around you without using God. Tell me where everything came from and why there is anything rather than nothing and why do I live when its easier for nothing to exist, without using the word God. im not an athiest, im a scientist :D

^^^ out of curiousity, why is it easier for nothing to exist?

It's interesting how the term "rational" can so easily be subverted. Is it rational to believe in the non-existence of god? Of course not - it is not rational to believe in anything which cannot be empirically demonstrated.

To demonstrate this point, the atheist (classic definition) feels that without proof, there is no proof of god, ergo there is no god. The agnostic (classic definition) feels that without proof, there is no proof of god and without proof of no proof, there is god.

But what is proof? The existence of everything is proof of something. If it is not proof of god, what is it proof of? Let's make up a word for the cause of the existence of everything: Detrio. Detrio caused everything to be as it is or turned out to be. One must, by necessity, believe in the rationality of Detrio - we have empirical evidence of Detrio in the fact of our very existence. Whether Detrio has some variation of continuing conciousness or control over the everything that exists is irrelevant.

Detrio is god, the creator, the first cause. To not believe in it is denial of rationality.

Heaven and hell and virtue and faith and sacrament and holiness are all just tools used to control - either as a group over another group or as an individual over ones actions. Ultimately, they are all secondary to the question of whether god/Detrio exists.

hannukah, well either the universe (i mean everything) is totally free no breaking of the laws of science and all this is allowed to be, in which case id say after 15 billion years its very unlikely that it all wont just have collapsed back to whatever it was previously, i mean 15 billion years is a long time for something to pull itself out of nothing by using no help, i.e. energy etc. and just simply exists, yet what exists is lots and lots of somethings (us and all we see) and it has to come from absolutly nothing. OR the universe breaks the laws of science as we know them now and creates something from nothing but does it by force, and if theres nothing what can there be to froce something out of nothing? you could argue the universe is infinate and that it wasnt created or desroyed and that would solve the riddle as to how it all came about, but that just poses even more questions such as how can be sustained? where did it come from anyway or has it always been and if it has always been what do all those infinities of time and space in the real sense actually mean?

I once read that an agnostic is taking the easy way out - you don't believe in God but just in case he wants to fry you in hell because you don't, then maybe you do believe.

I think that's unfair, because I believe I am an Agnostic atheist lol. I don't believe in God, for many of the reasons exposed here (and some personal ones, derived from experiences in my life), but I play with the idea that I would like it if there was one...Although at this point in my life, and having lived through certain events that I will not bore you with here, if there was such an entity, I would be too angry/disappointed with "It" to truly be happy knowing the truth...

I totally agree with this.

I think of "god" not as something in mythology, but the mere existence of something... like the universe. It's alive, it's doing SOMETHING (after all, we are here, so SOMETHING is going on). Do I think a conscious being created everything? Nah.. but I think the events that set in motion the way particles and matters of energy react with one another are significant.

The whole heaven/hell thing is really BS, IMO. I mean, in all the vastness of space, the universe, and everything that exists, why would god send me to hell for masturbating? Am I really ruining the fabric of existence or essense of life by doing that? Nah..

Whether or not a god exists, SOMETHING sparked the big bang (if you believe in that theory).. but there IS a reason, whatever it may be, a chemical reaction, whatever, that matter has formed into what we call life and consciousness, as obscure as it may be.

But this stuff makes my head hurt, so I'm gonna go drink.

Someday we will look back on this whole god thing and say 'oops!'

I AM A HUMAN BEING!
This isn't enough?

I believe in God... or a creator, anyway.. I believe that it is completely irrelevant to my day to day life. Ethics I can arrive at logically, and therefor, I do. I figure God can take care of himself... I got shit to do.

Most theists seem to wonder why someone would want to be an atheist. I for one, absolutely hate living living in a fantasy world, and that is more than enough for me.

However for those out there following that ridiculously stupid "just in case" logic:
One day I was flipping through the channels one day and I ended up on one of those christian networks. According to them, if you don't believe in the one true God you are praying to a self-made idol that lets you do whatever you feel like doing. They consider this even WORSE than doing nothing at all.

Just look at the infinite number of possible gods with possible rules and restrictions. It's blindingly obvious that if there is some god, he's never touched humanity in any way shape or form.

The 3 major monotheistic ones religions were started by a bunch of guys wandering in the desert for years on end. Do you really trust them?

I'm agnostic, because I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to rationally decide whether there is or is not a god (or gods). I have religious feelings, as most people do, but I think trying to provide a dogma is just a farce.

Or as my grandmother used to say, "I'm more worried about how I treat folks while I'm here." I loved that woman.

All the people talking about proof for the existence of God are forgetting one of the fundamental points about beleif in his existence - FAITH, faith does not require proof.