Faith selector

[Drake Tungsten]

The point is if there is no evidence for the existence of something, it likely does not exist. Ockham's razor and so forth...

But Boris's point was that God, as an omnipotent being, would not be subject to any of the laws that govern the world we experience. You ask for evidence of God's existence, but why do you assume that an omnipotent being would leave any evidence for us to find? If you have the ability to change reality at will, it's pretty easy to hide your tracks (or make sure that the tracks never appear in the first place).

Anyway, I have a question for you, Ramo. Do you believe in extraterrestrial life?

[Ramo]

But Boris's point was that God, as an omnipotent being, would not be subject to any of the laws that govern the world we experience. You ask for evidence of God's existence, but why do you assume that an omnipotent being would leave any evidence for us to find? If you have the ability to change reality at will, it's pretty easy to hide your tracks (or make sure that the tracks never appear in the first place).

I don't see why God would want to cover his tracks if he's omni-potent. Again, this is due to my experience in dealing with people, and I'm generalizing it.

The point is, why believe something exists or even is half as likely to exist as not, if there's no evidence to back it up? It simply isn't intuitive in the least.

You still haven't answered my questions. Do you believe that it's equally probable that you're in a Matrix system as not, or if the invisible unicorn exists as not?

I could come up with literally an infinte amount of absurd propositions, and they would all have a 50% likelyhood if what Boris and you are telling me is true. A logical system in which this is a true must be a poorly constructed one.

Anyway, I have a question for you, Ramo. Do you believe in extraterrestrial life?

Yes. Since there's life on earth, and the earth's conditions are likely not unique in the universe, it's probable that life exists extra-terrestrially.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


I've had no experience with any God, nor have I heard of any credible observation of a God, so I think it's reasonable to assume that such a thing does not exist.

I agree with that version. It was the use of the word "improbable" that I was questioning.

What I don't understand is why Loinburger has such a problem with the word 'agnostic'. Its about not going on belief yet he keeps trying to make it otherwise.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't see why God would want to cover his tracks if he's omni-potent. Again, this is due to my experience in dealing with people, and I'm generalizing it.

How would you have any idea what the thought processes of an omnipotent being are?

The point is, why believe something exists or even is half as likely to exist as not, if there's no evidence to back it up? It simply isn't intuitive in the least.

You still haven't answered my questions. Do you believe that it's equally probable that you're in a Matrix system as not, or if the invisible unicorn exists as not?

I've never said that I support all of Boris's argument, particularly the "50-50 probability" bit. All I did was point out that your propositions involved non-omnipotent beings and consequently are irrelevant to any discussion of the existence of God. Omnipotence was a major part of Boris's argument that you just choose to avoid.

Yes. Since there's life on earth, and the earth's conditions are likely not unique in the universe, it's probable that life exists extra-terrestrially.

So, you believe in extraterrestrials that you have never seen and have no evidence for. Yet you don't believe in God because of the lack of evidence.

You talk a lot about probability, but how exactly do you go about determining the probability that an omnipotent god exists? How does the fact that you, one small person in an unimaginably vast universe, have never seen evidence for a god translate into a low probability that God exists? I don't see how there is any way to determine the probability of God's existence, so I don't understand how you can say that it is improbable that God exists. In the end, your belief that God doesn't exist is just that, a belief. Your arguments aren't any more logical than those of people who do believe in God.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
What I don't understand is why Loinburger has such a problem with the word 'agnostic'. Its about not going on belief yet he keeps trying to make it otherwise.

I don't really have much of a problem with the term "agnostic," I just take issue with those who claim that they're "agnostic, not atheist," which pigeonholes many atheists into an inappropriate belief category. It's one thing for somebody to say that they're agnostic but admit that they're also atheist, but it's something else entirely for a professed agnostic to ascribe beliefs to atheists that many atheists do not have (as Boris has done).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger


I don't really have much of a problem with the term "agnostic," I just take issue with those who claim that they're "agnostic, not atheist," which pigeonholes many atheists into an inappropriate belief category.

Its not my fault that some people have been intimidated into calling themselves Atheists.

It's one thing for somebody to say that they're agnostic but admit that they're also atheist, but it's something else entirely for a professed agnostic to ascribe beliefs to atheists that many atheists do not have (as Boris has done).

There is a perfectly good and precise word for not haveing a belief about gods or supreme beings either way on the grounds of not having evidence either way. Its called Agnostic. If someone for some reason insists on using the broadest version of Atheist instead that is their problem.

You keep trying to change Agnostic into something that includes people that are more like Deists. That is the problem I am talking about.

An Atheist can be an Agnostic but why not use the more precise word? An Agnostic could call themself an Atheist but why use a word that also implies, rather strongly at that, an active disbelief? An Agnostic is not a Deist or a theist of any kind which is what you seem to be trying to wedge in there. Unless you have recently relented in you efforts to pound square pegs into round holes.

[Ramo]

How would you have any idea what the thought processes of an omnipotent being are?

I already mentioned that I'm generalizing from the only example of intelligent life I know of, humans.

I've never said that I support all of Boris's argument, particularly the "50-50 probability" bit. All I did was point out that your propositions involved non-omnipotent beings and consequently are irrelevant to any discussion of the existence of God. Omnipotence was a major part of Boris's argument that you just choose to avoid.

I don't see why omnipotentence in particular is relevant in the least. I haven't been avoiding anything.

The reason why omnipotence is relevant to the argument is because Boris was saying that one can't disprove an omnipotent being exists. I agree. But the same applies to literally everything else, so the argument is invalid.

So, you believe in extraterrestrials that you have never seen and have no evidence for. Yet you don't believe in God because of the lack of evidence.

There is evidence for ET life. We know there life can arise in this universe. We know that there are stars similar to the sun. And given the number of planets, it's overwhelmingly likely that there is a planet similar to Earth, and therefore life elsewhere.

On the other hand there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a God.

You talk a lot about probability, but how exactly do you go about determining the probability that an omnipotent god exists? How does the fact that you, one small person in an unimaginably vast universe, have never seen evidence for a god translate into a low probability that God exists?

My experiences. From what I know of science, I don't see how an omnipotent being can come into existence. Nor do I see how it's necessitated. Nor have I observed or heard a credible observation of God.

I know my experiences are limited, but I've seen no evidence for a God. And its very concept is counter-intuitive and completely different from everything I know of.

If I can't assign a probability to the existence of a God, I can't assign a probability to anything.

I don't see how there is any way to determine the probability of God's existence, so I don't understand how you can say that it is improbable that God exists. In the end, your belief that God doesn't exist is just that, a belief. Your arguments aren't any more logical than those of people who do believe in God.

I never asserted otherwise. It's all based on the experiences one has had, so the probability distribution between people may vary greatly. Theists may think they have a connection to God, that they've experienced something that points to the existence of such a thing, so they believe otherwise.

It was Boris that asserted that his beliefs were logically superior to both mine and a theist's.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its not my fault that some people have been intimidated into calling themselves Atheists.

Nor is it my fault that some people have inaccurate ideas about the belief systems of atheists. I try to clear up such misconceptions.

There is a perfectly good and precise word for not haveing a belief about gods or supreme beings either way on the grounds of not having evidence either way. Its called Agnostic. If someone for some reason insists on using the broadest version of Atheist instead that is their problem.

So what is the fundamental/practical difference between an Agnostic worldview and an Atheist worldview? That's what I'm trying to figure out here--if there's a fundamental/practical difference, then I can see the need for two different terms; if there isn't a fundamental/practical difference, then why do agnostics always try to separate themselves from atheists on things like religion polls or whatever? You don't see the Christians demanding that there be different categories for "fundamentalist Christians" and "normal, tolerant Christians," so why do the Agnostics always try to draw a distinction between "irrational smeg-head Atheists" and "normal, tolerant Atheists"?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger


Nor is it my fault that some people have inaccurate ideas about the belief systems of atheists. I try to clear up such misconceptions.

Its the fault of the Agnostics that call themselves Atheists. They can do so without being wrong but its ambigous in comparison.

So what is the fundamental/practical difference between an Agnostic worldview and an Atheist worldview?

None if the Atheist is an Agnositic. Lots if they actively disbelieve in a god. That requires a belief without evidence. That tends to come from a disenchantment with religion and not from reason. Atheists are more likely to go back to being religious from what I have seen. Perhaps its because they allready have the belief without evidence part.

That's what I'm trying to figure out here--if there's a fundamental/practical difference, then I can see the need for two different terms; if there isn't a fundamental/practical difference, then why do agnostics always try to separate themselves from atheists on things like religion polls or whatever?

What does practical have to do with belief? Besides people kill each other over religious beliefs that is.


Agnostics say they are Agnostics because they are not going on belief. Many Atheists ARE going on belief or they just haven't figured out that Agnostic is a much better term for their position.

You don't see the Christians demanding that there be different categories for "fundamentalist Christians" and "normal, tolerant Christians," so why do the Agnostics always try to draw a distinction between "irrational smeg-head Atheists" and "normal, tolerant Atheists"?

Why don't you load up that question with just a little more slander towards Agnostics AND Fundamentalists? (all right a lot of Fundamentalists ARE intolerant but some aren't).

Have you stopped beating your wife Loin?

Agnostics want to draw a distinction between people that go on evidence and reason and those that go on belief. I certainly HAVE seen Christians ask why their particular flavor was left off.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger
I don't really have much of a problem with the term "agnostic," I just take issue with those who claim that they're "agnostic, not atheist," which pigeonholes many atheists into an inappropriate belief category. It's one thing for somebody to say that they're agnostic but admit that they're also atheist, but it's something else entirely for a professed agnostic to ascribe beliefs to atheists that many atheists do not have (as Boris has done).

Like it or not, the world has made a rather firm delineation between atheists and agnostics. When you say you're an atheist to someone, the assumption is you believe God doesn't exist. You say agnostic, the assumption is that you are in the "I don't know" family.

Since this poll is about guaging one's spiritual beliefs, I think it is fair to make the difference. As I said before, it would be misleading to most people to describe myself as atheist. I am probably more theistic than not, actually, as while I do believe there is a 50/50 chance of God's existence, in the back of my mind I have the "God is watching" mentality that was no doubt instilled in me as a young kid anyway. In that light, atheist is really a misnomer.

At any rate, I get the sense you believe I have somehow insulted or attacked atheists by delineating myself from them, which is absolutely not the case. I just don't want to send the signal to people that I believe (or don't believe) something that isn't the case. In that light, agnostic is, above any other description, the most apt for me. I have nothing against atheists.

[seraphin]

1. Neo-Pagan (100%)
2. New Age (96%)
3. Liberal Quakers (94%)
4. Unitarian Universalism (93%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (87%)
6. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (85%)
7. New Thought (83%)
8. Mahayana Buddhism (80%)
9. Scientology (76%)
10. Theravada Buddhism (73%)
11. Taoism (69%)
12. Bahá'à Faith (66%)
13. Hinduism (65%)
14. Secular Humanism (61%)
15. Reform Judaism (59%)
16. Orthodox Quaker (53%)
17. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (49%)
18. Jainism (47%)
19. Jehovah's Witness (41%)
20. Sikhism (36%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (33%)
22. Seventh Day Adventist (29%)
23. Orthodox Judaism (27%)
24. Nontheist (24%)
25. Islam (15%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (14%)
27. Roman Catholic (14%)

ah.....thought i had no religion - now i seem to have one....gonna take a look what "neo-pagan" means...


edit:
ahh...vicca and that stuff - funny

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger
Nor is it my fault that some people have inaccurate ideas about the belief systems of atheists. I try to clear up such misconceptions.

So if:

1) The "misconceptions" are what the vast majority of people believe to be the case, and

2) Even trusted sources, like my Webster's, define the terms by what you deem "erroneously,"

Then how is it anyone's fault for applying those terms to their most common usage, the one most people will understand right away (without having to do cartwheels of explanation)?

More importantly, why does that provoke your launching attacks on someone like me, who uses the most common definitions?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its the fault of the Agnostics that call themselves Atheists. They can do so without being wrong but its ambigous in comparison.

If an atheist wishes to eliminate ambiguity on their position then they can refer to themself as a "strong atheist" or a "weak atheist." Using the term "agnostic" is only unambiguous in certain contexts, like internet bulletin boards where 40% of the posters are weak atheists *** agnostics.

What does practical have to do with belief? Besides people kill each other over religious beliefs that is.

Claiming to hold a belief (or not hold a belief) doesn't necessarily mean that somebody actually holds (or doesn't hold) a belief--belief is determined more by one's worldview than by what they claim to believe. So, I might claim to believe in Snoggo the Almighty Wonder Rainbow, but if my worldview doesn't change as a result then I obviously don't have much conviction in my belief (and thus it isn't really a belief at all). If, however, I put out a jar of milk on every full moon in order to feed Snoggo (since Snoggo will consume me if I do not), then my professed belief is probably genuine.

Agnostics say they are Agnostics because they are not going on belief. Many Atheists ARE going on belief or they just haven't figured out that Agnostic is a much better term for their position.

Weak agnosticism is the belief that God's existence has not been proven, and strong agnosticism is the belief that God's existence cannot be proven. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in God or no-God, and strong atheism is the belief in no-God. Using Agnostic as a substitute for Weak Atheist only adds ambiguity.

Why don't you load up that question with just a little more slander towards Agnostics AND Fundamentalists? (all right a lot of Fundamentalists ARE intolerant but some aren't).

You consider it slanderous to refer to agnostics/weak atheists as "normal and tolerant"? Or did you think that I was referring to agnostics/weak atheists (the group that I've repeatedly said that I belong to) as "irrational smeg-heads"?

Agnostics want to draw a distinction between people that go on evidence and reason and those that go on belief.

Then they should use the unambiguous terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" to draw their distinction, rather than increase the ambiguity by using an epistemological term as a metaphysical term. Agnostics usually are weak atheists, but it's hardly a universal. However, all weak atheists are weak atheists.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
At any rate, I get the sense you believe I have somehow insulted or attacked atheists by delineating myself from them, which is absolutely not the case.

I don't think that you intended to be insulting, and regardless, I wasn't at all insulted.

[TheStinger]

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (95%)
3. Secular Humanism (95%)
4. Liberal Quakers (88%)
5. Nontheist (85%)
6. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (72%)
7. Neo-Pagan (71%)
8. Reform Judaism (64%)
9. Theravada Buddhism (63%)
10. Bahá'à Faith (62%)
11. New Thought (60%)
12. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (58%)
13. New Age (56%)
14. Scientology (56%)
15. Taoism (56%)
16. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (53%)
17. Sikhism (42%)
18. Orthodox Quaker (37%)
19. Mahayana Buddhism (36%)
20. Islam (35%)
21. Orthodox Judaism (35%)
22. Jehovah's Witness (31%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (24%)
24. Roman Catholic (24%)
25. Seventh Day Adventist (22%)
26. Jainism (21%)
27. Hinduism (13%)

How am 95& protestant I answered no to all the trinity and god questions and as for Islam