Atheists and Agnostics - you're missing all the fun!!

[Alceste]

I do believe that sometimes atheists are not sincere and reject religion on the account of rejecting one religion. They believe god is seen only through one pair of eyes.
I try welcoming atheist to open theism or deism as much as I can because I fear that perhaps they have no tried anything else. BUT if an atheist is sincere and has indeed tried religions and lack of religion then that is all that can be done for them and they must be happy.
Believing in God does not make people happy although it can. Believing in yourself can do just the same as well if you are confident enough.

Why do I have to try a bunch of religions before I can be sincere? I know they're not for me already. It would be quite insincere of me to "try" them knowing already that my disbelief in supernatural claims will not be budged.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Your logic is very odd.

You do believe in your god with absolute certainty, right?

I would not call it absolute certainty because if god could be disproved then my belief would cease. But I am 99% certain there is a deity or god and I believe he fits my definition.

Faith is believe in something that cannot be proven. You accept that.
You can't prove the existence of your god, right? (remember we're talking about the present).
Therefor your believe in god is based on faith is it not?

Until you consider scientific theories as faith then I will not label my belief in god as faith.

When I say verified, I don't mean its absolute infallible truth, I mean that its based on observable, material evidence. You know those fuzzy things we can see and touch, like cosmic radiation.

Understood, I was under an entirely different impression by that statement.

The earth did not happen in the big bang, that was way later and its a different theory, but of course an indirect consequence of the creation of the universe. We have lots and lots of evidence for both, else they wouldn't be called theories. A theory in science is a much higher ranking term than the layman's definition.
A theory is never proven, its always a theory no matter if all the evidence in the world supports it, because science doesn't deal in absolutes.

Obviously I know this well and my evidence is the same evidence you have, the issue is that the starting point is different. You believe the earth was a result of the big bang and I believe god was the result of the big bang. I do not believe in randomosity while you do. Essentially we believe in the same thing but our starting line is different along with a few others issues.

I assume you believe the Big Bang was random and resulted in our random creation. Right?

I believe the Big Bang was purposeful and it was designed to create and the creation was not the result of random events but was intentional.

Same events just different reasons.

Faith is when you believe something despite there being no observable evidence supporting it or even if the evidence plain contradicts it.
If some new indisputable data was discovered that contradicts the big bang theory, then scientist would stop believing the big bang and come up with a new theory. That's pretty much the opposite of faith.

Well I answered that earlier. If there is evidence to disprove god then I would immediately stop believing in one. I have never stopped clinging to the same theological ideas in my entire life. As my understanding progresses so does my belief in god.
I am a deist so I am not prescribing to a religion of any kind. I believe god can be understood through reason alone. So even my concept about god is theoretical and nothing I claim about god is absolute whatsoever. It is my own theoretical opinion whose evidence is based from what we already know physically, down to the tiniest molecular particles and atoms.
As I have told you before, faith is based off an assertion that does not emanate from reason. It is hopeful wishing of something. I do not wish that god exist I believe he exist because of the evidence of creation. I do not accept randomosity on such grand scale(aka the universe).

 

[Sha'irullah]

Why do I have to try a bunch of religions before I can be sincere? I know they're not for me already. It would be quite insincere of me to "try" them knowing already that my disbelief in supernatural claims will not be budged.

I do not mean for you to try to adhere to a religion but to be sure you understand that the god of one religion is not judging your opinion of god altogether.
If that is not the case then your belief in their being no god is well respected as far as I am concerned.
I say this because I have known so many opinionated atheists who judge all religions according to a singular religious perspective. What I believe does not concern others and I am not underneath the impression anyone is going to hell as I do not believe in it yet alone heaven.
So I have nothing to gain or lose if an atheist accepts my views or not.

 

[sonofdad]

Obviously I know this well and my evidence is the same evidence you have, the issue is that the starting point is different. You believe the earth was a result of the big bang and I believe god was the result of the big bang. I do not believe in randomosity while you do. Essentially we believe in the same thing but our starting line is different along with a few others issues.

I assume you believe the Big Bang was random and resulted in our random creation. Right?

I believe the Big Bang was purposeful and it was designed to create and the creation was not the result of random events but was intentional.

Same events just different reasons.

So you believe the universe, the earth and we came into existance pretty much how science explains it, but you just put god at the beginning of it?

Nobody really has a clue what happened before the big bang and I certainly don't claim to know, so there is a void there open for speculation. A bearded skywizard might be as good an explanation as any.

I don't believe anything is truly random, everything is caused by something else, but I don't think a universe like this is impossible without some kind of a conscious being designing, just improbable. But then again, I don't think our primate brains are made to understand whatever is outside this universe, if there is any "outside". All we have is speculation based on what we know, and all our knowledge comes from what we can observe from this universe so we really don't know anything.

Faith can be based on logic in this sense, but it's fallacious cause you assume that your brain is capable of understanding something that you have never observed.
You see that A leads to B, e.g. an engineer builds a car, and you assume the same applies to how the universe was created.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not believe it can't be verified but I believe we do not have the means to verify it no different than how you cannot verify the creation of the earth.

We'll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes objective evidence then.

I speculate they exist just the same way you speculate they do not exist. This debate is coming down to semantics and that is about it. We are both riding the same river, the issue is that one is going upstream while the other down.
If this is the case then we both have faith.

Does this mean that you don't believe in gods, but rather only speculate that they exist?

Never figured you out as highly complex. I myself am a simpleton.
1 bottle of whiskey, 1 cute Nihonese maid, 1 Playstation and 1 copy of Metal Gear and I am ready for World War 3 , 4, 5, Armageddon, the Apocalypse and any hell to follow afterwards. :beach:

I was a simpleton first.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Does this mean that you don't believe in gods, but rather only speculate that they exist?

Not to play word games here but I believe in a god because I have speculated that one exist . It does not mean I try to convert others on bases of my assumption and belief there is a god.
In the words of Albert Camus "I would rather live my life as if there is a god and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."
Practical deism never hurt anybody....I think so

 

[LuisDantas]

So you would live differently if you believed there is no God?

Do you think we would as well? In which way, if any?

 

[Penumbra]

So you would live differently if you believed there is no God?

Do you think we would as well? In which way, if any?

^I second this question.

Personally, I don't know what it means to "live life as if there is a god" compared to how I'm currently living my life.

And this doesn't mean I haven't thought about it. It means I thought about it and concluded that there's really no reason for me to act any differently with regards to various theistic or atheistic realities.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not to play word games here but I believe in a god because I have speculated that one exist . It does not mean I try to convert others on bases of my assumption and belief there is a god.
In the words of Albert Camus "I would rather live my life as if there is a god and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."
Practical deism never hurt anybody....I think so

This is no mere word game. Your post clarifies your position greatly.
Would you say that you don't really believe there is a god, but you believe there might be, & so you live your life as though it were true?
If so, then in what way is your life different from what it would be were you a heathen?
Just curious.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This is no mere word game. Your post clarifies your position greatly.
Would you say that you don't really believe there is a god, but you believe there might be, & so you live your life as though it were true?
If so, then in what way is your life different from what it would be were you a heathen?
Just curious.

I'm a little bit like that myself. I find it more interesting to conceive of life as having some sort of meaning or purpose. That way I can spend my life searching for and speculating about that meaning or purpose -- which happens to be what I enjoy doing.

God is a useful word, at least for me, even though I could pass as the most godless of Revoltingstanians.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm a little bit like that myself. I find it more interesting to conceive of life as having some sort of meaning or purpose. That way I can spend my life searching for and speculating about that meaning or purpose -- which happens to be what I enjoy doing.
God is a useful word, at least for me, even though I could pass as the most godless of Revoltingstanians.

Sounds reasonable to me!

 

[Alceste]

I do not mean for you to try to adhere to a religion but to be sure you understand that the god of one religion is not judging your opinion of god altogether.
If that is not the case then your belief in their being no god is well respected as far as I am concerned.
I say this because I have known so many opinionated atheists who judge all religions according to a singular religious perspective. What I believe does not concern others and I am not underneath the impression anyone is going to hell as I do not believe in it yet alone heaven.
So I have nothing to gain or lose if an atheist accepts my views or not.

Fair enough. I personally feel there are more gods than believers, since no two people describe their deities in exactly the same way and many people have more than one.

 

[Dayman]

As an agnostic, I'm just being honest with myself. Nothing anyone has ever said or done has proven or disproven God. How can we argue about something none of us have any real knowledge of?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Fair enough. I personally feel there are more gods than believers, since no two people describe their deities in exactly the same way and many people have more than one.

I do not mean to sound like a New Ager but god is subjective. I see no reason for having another god. Monotheism is so much simpler while polytheism is just far too confusing for me.
Soon there will be a god for everything....

a god for the apple skin
a god for the apple innards
a god for the apple seed
a god for the apple core
a god for the apple stem
a god for the apple leaf
a god for the apples roots
a god for the apple tree trunk
a god for the apple branches
a god for the apple juice
a god for the apple sauce
a god for the apple cider
a god for the apple jolly rancher
a god for the apple pie
a god for the apple tart
a god for the apple strudel
a god for the apple manzanita
a god for the apple cake
and a god for the 'adam's apple'

...You see where I am going with this right . This is why I could not get into polytheism. At the end of the day there are just too many dang gods to keep track of. Sooner or later one must cut the line and I cut it at one.
Call me lazy perhaps...... nevermind, i forgot I actually am lazy. :biglaugh: