Poll - Belief in God

[Vandon G]

Personally I think that regardless if there is a God or not and regardless as to which religion is the right one, the belief system has to do with your peoples history and their current culture and is only slightly influenced beyond that point. I am an American living in a Chrisitian family and question the existance of God. Even in this questioning I do consider the possibility that the Christian God may exist but it never even creeps into my mind that Allah may exist or Buddah or Zeus. Had the Muslim world ended up becoming the most advanced and taken over Europe back in the days of the crusades I'm sure my thinking would be completely different today and even die hard Christians may be able to admit to agreeing with this. Faith is given to you not by God but by other worldly influences. That in itself proves to be such an unsuccessful system that it throws into complete doubt that God exists at all at least in my view.

[babie_blu1984]

To put your faith in something, and state it to be a 100% fact, when you can't prove it to be so, is ILLOGICAL. I think that 2 + 2 = 22, I can't prove it, but I believe 100% that I'm right. Is that a logical stance?

Balk all you will, but this is the stuff of a first year elementary logic course.

The simple fact remains -

1. You can't prove a negative
2. The absence of evidence is not proof of the abscence of existance.

Ultimately yes, we are all agnostics by default, we are limited in our understanding to that of the physical realm. Anything beyond that is based on faith, not knowledge, as bootfitter has repeatedly pointed out. (and yet he's been ignored)

People are theists/atheists by choice. That choice is based on belief and faith, not knowledge or logic.

You can deride this notion as stupid all you like, it doesn't change the reality of it. It only undermines your own credibility and points out your lack of understanding of the basic principles of logic.

Waxy

[casie p]

Waxy,

It wouldn't be rational or logical to believe any of your statements up above except 'innocent until proven guilty' because it is a double edged blade that proves my point that until there is proof, you are presumed innocent. That is simply how logic works. If you can't prove it, it has no premise. As far as bigfoot, it depenRAB whether you believe the pictures are real or not. In either case, there is more proof for bigfoot than there is for God.

It is very logical to say that because there is no proof, it doesn't exist. That is why we have logic and that is what logic stanRAB for. Your confusing logic with belief. Logic is a right and wrong standard. Logic is the standard for testing facts. If you can't provide facts then your only stating your theory.

When you don't have evidence, all you have is conjecture or theory, be it right or wrong. Until you have evidence for your theory, it is without premise and shouldn't even be considered.

We can play mind games all you want. If I say there is a little blue troll that hides under your bed when your sleeping, I can't prove it but we should assume that it could be true? At what point are you willing to draw the line that your accusations are ludicrous, absurd, and unfounded? This is stupid. Logic doesn't bend that way.

[Tenshi!!!!!!!!!!]

I wasn't aware that agnostics elected Madalyn Murray O'Hair their official spokeswoman.

JP, you can present all the quotes you like, that's an easy thing to do. If I don't like GWB, I can go to any one of a thousand biased websites and pull off a quote (infidels.org? and a nice editing job on your part as well.), flip the coin, and I can go find a thousand quotes on Kerry. Do any of them represent reality? Do any of them represent the view of the majority of Americans?

I think the quote from Huxley, the mann who coined the term, -



represents agnostics rather well. It's certainly not derisive of the stance as you would like to make it out to be. On the contrary, it shows the thoughts of a highly intellectual man who has done extensive research on the issue and has ultimately realized that he is not capable of finding the answers in the physical realm. He states that he has "neither art nor part with any of these denominations", so it's pretty clear he isn't hedging his bet on getting into heaven through the back door. Therefore, rather than taking an unsupportable stance for or against, as a freethinker, he admitted that he cannot know the ultimate answers, and accepted that.

What a gutless, morally vacuuous loser right?

Or, a realist.

Waxy

[Bee ★]

Religion? Yes. Too many emotions are utilized in religion. But to live according to a belief is another thing altogether. It is thought that a belief system requires religion, but it does not. Religion, however, requires a belief system. Big difference.

Knowing and proving are two different things.

Not at all.

What is your definition of a fool?

And, how do you know that I don’t know that God exists?

[abhilash]

Very nice.

[isp]

i never offered any examples. i never said that a lack of faith causes agnosticism/atheism. i never set out to prove anything. i certainly did not claim that God exists.

i have shown that all three positions are illogical. take the blinders off and go read my post again. your conclusion and counterargument are totally off the points i originally made. seems youre the only one that missed it too...

[KIVEN <<]

there is nothing wrong with stating that atheism or theism is illogical, because they are. from a completely logical standpoint there has never been found one bit of logical evidence that supports the existence or non-existence of God, a supernatural realm, a soul, etc. the belief that these things exist or dont exist are entirely based on faith.

actually we have found that there is actually a better probability of finding evidence for God's existence than finding evidence of God's non-existence.

example, if a man with glowing skin was walking around healing physically deformed people, then walked across the surface of the atlantic (or maybe drove, since that would be faster) and caused food to rain from the sky in africa, then said he got his power from God, then this would be strong evidence that God exists, or at the very least, evidence that supernatural power exists.

however, even in the absence of such a man, we still have no evidence that such a phenomenon cannot ever exist, and therefore atheism cannot be proven, which would imply that theism is more logical

strange enough, since such a phenomenon has never hapened, the position of theism is actually less logical. so far, the phenomenon is only imaginary, whereas the lack of such phenomenon is real. therefore the atheist position is based on current reality, and is therefore more logical

thus we have 2 positions that are equally logical and at the same time illogical.

agnostics regonise this and therefore have no inclination to either position. some resign to the position that no choice can be made, while others still have a hope that one position will eventually become more logical

this whole belief enigma enRAB up being pointless because all positions are based on illogical premises and the lack of proof...

...and yet it seems that as humans we still yearn to believe in something...

[Libbles1233]

I forgot about this thread, I meant to reply ages ago. It kinda P'd me off at the time so I left it.

I think this is a completely unfounded attack.

As a scientist, it's really the only position you can take. There is a total lack of evidence to prove God exists, and this lack of evidence is sufficient for many to conclude that God doesn't exist. Belief in God despite the lack of any physical evidence requires faith. HOWEVER, at the same time, science, and our current understanding of the universe, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Science will NEVER be able to prove that.

You could replace God with aliens or bigfoot and the above statement still holRAB true.

Faced with these realities, I feel that ultimately, being agnostic is the only LOGICAL position. I fail to see how that position is morally or intellectually "vacuuous". I don't even see how it can be considered "fence sitting".

Furthermore, being agnostic means you accept the possibility of ANY FORM of higher power. That higher power does NOT have to be the God of Abraham, it could be a higher power that has yet to even be defined.

Waxy

[Ladiie_Tempah]

I'm done fighting on your ground. Your arguments contain no substance. Now it is my turn.

How logical is it to contemplate an idea or entity that has absolutely no evidence or premise whatsoever in the physical world? It is not possible or logical for anything to exist that has no observable evidence. It is more likely that a winged horse existed than God because it is conceivable that because there are horses and because there are birRAB that a flying horse may have existed. There is no premise whatsoever for God. Nothing observable. And nothing to work with.

When I say observable, I mean an object as a whole and its counterparts. A human body is made up of flesh, bone, organs, atoms, quarks, and any other metaphysical parts. But regardless, it is an observable entity from which we can draw other conclusions about. We cannot draw any conclusions from or about God.

Through our experiences we have premises to conceive that other planets exist and could contain life. We can concieve that numbers go on forever. We can even concieve that a winged horse could have existed. But we cannot conceive God. There is nothing observable or even conceivable to work with, therefore, the idea of God is faulty and has no premise for existence. God is simply a made up thing.

Someone gave the example that 2+2=22. I am assuming this would be an example of a negative, since no one has really given me a definition or an example. Logic dictates that this is wrong or faulty because it can be disproven rather than proven. So I am not sure where that arguement is going.