View Poll Results: Which option best describes you?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm a theist - there is definitely a God/higher power

    14 31.11%
  • I'm a theist - there is a possibility that there is not a God

    5 11.11%
  • I'm an atheist - there is no God

    11 24.44%
  • I'm an atheist - there is a possibility that there is a God

    8 17.78%
  • I self identify as an agnostic, neither atheist nor theist

    3 6.67%
  • Other - I defy the above classifications

    4 8.89%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63

Thread: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably God)

  1. #21
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I'm an atheist, there could possibly be a god, there simply is no evidence that I've ever seen that supports such a possibility. There could also be unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, space aliens and honest politicians, but I have likewise never seen evidence for any of those, thus I do not believe in any of them.
    Positivism has no basis in logic. A lack of evidence is not evidence.

    I said that there definitely is a God, though logically the position would have to be we don't know. You can't prove a negative. That said, there are plenty of arguments that support the existence of some kind of deity*, and I have personal experiences that solidify it for me. I realize that the personal experiences only apply to me, but there has to be some kind of deity. It makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing. I'm pretty sure that violates the first law of thermodynamics.

    *Quinque viae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  2. #22
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGirlNextDoor
    I voted that I self identify as an agnostic - but I've read before that agnostics should actually consider themselves atheists.

    I have felt no belief, I can't blindly believe and I have no proof (this is why I started with my lack of belief, as I realize not everything can be inherently proven). Therefore, I don't rule out the possibility, but I cannot definitively say that there is or is not.
    It depends on what definition of agnostic you're using. Unfortunately, the word has been co-opted, largely by people who are afraid to use the term "atheist" to refer to themselves. To many today, it serves as a mid-way point between theism and atheism, but that's not what agnostic really means at all.

    Agnosticism and gnosticism are actually terms referring to the ability to know. They have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism and theism, which deal with belief. It helps to look at the root words. a-without, gnosis-knowledge. An agnostic, therefore, is someone who believes that knowledge, in this case of god(s), is impossible. It's not whether or not you have knowledge, but whether or not you can have knowledge. If you think that it is inherently impossible for man to ever have any knowledge whatsoever about the existence or characteristics of god(s), then you are an agnostic. If you think that man can, then you are a gnostic.

    However, everyone is also either a theist or an atheist. If you have beliefs in god(s), then you are a theist. If you do not, you are an atheist. It has nothing to do with evidence, knowledge or certainty, it has to do with belief. Belief is a binary. Either it exists or it does not. If it does not, you are an atheist.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  3. #23
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez
    Positivism has no basis in logic. A lack of evidence is not evidence.

    I said that there definitely is a God, though logically the position would have to be we don't know. You can't prove a negative. That said, there are plenty of arguments that support the existence of some kind of deity*, and I have personal experiences that solidify it for me. I realize that the personal experiences only apply to me, but there has to be some kind of deity. It makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing. I'm pretty sure that violates the first law of thermodynamics.
    No, it's lack of evidence, but believing something without having evidence that it's actually true is irrational.

    You made the claim that there's a God, I don't have to prove you wrong, you, as the positive claimant, have to prove yourself right. If you fail to do so, I have no reason to take your claim seriously. The same goes if someone runs up to me and claims a giant green lizard is trashing downtown Tokyo. Do they have evidence for their claim? No? I reject the claim as unsupported until evidence comes to light. I do the same with your God. You are solely responsible for defending your own claims. No evidence = no logical credibility.

    Besides, the first law of thermodynamics, along with all the other physical laws of our universe, came into existence with the Big Bang. It has no bearing whatsoever prior to that. You cannot apply rules to a situation where they may or may not apply.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #24
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

    I self identify as an atheist. Of course it's *possible* that there are gods/desses, but I've not seen a lick of evidence for them. Therefore, I do not believe in them any more than I believe in any other fantasy or mythological creatures for which I have no evidence.

  5. #25
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Positivism has no basis in logic. A lack of evidence is not evidence.

    I said that there definitely is a God, though logically the position would have to be we don't know. You can't prove a negative. That said, there are plenty of arguments that support the existence of some kind of deity*, and I have personal experiences that solidify it for me. I realize that the personal experiences only apply to me, but there has to be some kind of deity. It makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing. I'm pretty sure that violates the first law of thermodynamics.

    *Quinque viae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    why is God immune to the "it makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing" argument or your postulated 1st law violations?
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  6. #26
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    why is God immune to the "it makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing" argument or your postulated 1st law violations?
    Ooo, Ooo!! I know their answer for this one:

    Because it's "GOD". It exists outside "natural laws".

    In other words, because it's the only way their belief can work. It's kind of like the ole standby answer, "The lord works in mysterious ways."

  7. #27
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, it's lack of evidence, but believing something without having evidence that it's actually true is irrational.

    You made the claim that there's a God, I don't have to prove you wrong, you, as the positive claimant, have to prove yourself right. If you fail to do so, I have no reason to take your claim seriously. The same goes if someone runs up to me and claims a giant green lizard is trashing downtown Tokyo. Do they have evidence for their claim? No? I reject the claim as unsupported until evidence comes to light. I do the same with your God. You are solely responsible for defending your own claims. No evidence = no logical credibility.

    Besides, the first law of thermodynamics, along with all the other physical laws of our universe, came into existence with the Big Bang. It has no bearing whatsoever prior to that. You cannot apply rules to a situation where they may or may not apply.
    Matter had to come from somewhere. And you can't say that there are no arguments when you didn't even look up my link to the quinque viae.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  8. #28
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    why is God immune to the "it makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing" argument or your postulated 1st law violations?
    Because God would be above the laws of nature, while everything in nature is applicable to those laws. Since we matter cannot come from nowhere, then we would need someone who is above nature to create it.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  9. #29
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Ooo, Ooo!! I know their answer for this one:

    Because it's "GOD". It exists outside "natural laws".

    In other words, because it's the only way their belief can work. It's kind of like the ole standby answer, "The lord works in mysterious ways."
    Then how do natural laws explain the phenomenon of existence if you can't get something from nothing?

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  10. #30
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Matter had to come from somewhere. And you can't say that there are no arguments when you didn't even look up my link to the quinque viae.
    Random vacuum fluctuations (quantum fluctuations). It's the creation of a matter/anti-matter pair that exist for a short period of time. They have a measurable effect, most notably the Lamb shift and the effective charge of the electron.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •