First cause of the universe.

[TagliatelliMonster]

I already explained that little choices lead to bigger choices. If I chose to open my mind to myth, which I don't, I could get there eventually.

Maybe if you "open your mind" so much to the point that your brain is falling out.

Funny.


ps: you basically just said that belief isn't a choice.

 

[Polymath257]

I already explained that little choices lead to bigger choices. If I chose to open my mind to myth, which I don't, I could get there eventually.

But what you don't seem to understand is that we put Yahweh and the Bible in the same category of mythology as we do Thor, Zeus, Apollo, etc.

So, from what i can see, you have already 'opened your mind to myth'. The only difference is which myth.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But what you don't seem to understand is that we put Yahweh and the Bible in the same category of mythology as we do Thor, Zeus, Apollo, etc.

So, from what i can see, you have already 'opened your mind to myth'. The only difference is which myth.

I know that's how you see it. I'm explaining how I see it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

you basically just said that belief isn't a choice.

Not at all. Life is a series of little choices that add up to us making big choices. The theists don't generally become atheist overnight and vice versa. It's a series of little choices that change who people are.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Unless they were praying for Russians to carpet bomb them.
But I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that they weren't.

I don't remember God ever promising that we would not have trials. In fact Jesus said we would. He also said he has overcome the world. Perhaps you don't understand what blessings are... they aren't always good health and no trouble.

 

[gnostic]

Why? Ask first and you will know the others.

You think none of us have tried?

Not every agnostics and atheists were always agnostics and atheists, Wildswanderer.

Some have brought up, some converted from other religions or other sects.

And they could leave being Christians for any number of reasons.

Don't make assumptions that just because we are agnostics or atheists, now, that we don't know the church life, or that we don't understand the bible, or that we didn't worship or pray.

Theism, atheism, agnosticism and whatever -ism you could think of, no one has ever established that God or gods exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't remember God ever promising that we would not have trials. In fact Jesus said we would. He also said he has overcome the world. Perhaps you don't understand what blessings are... they aren't always good health and no trouble.

And with that, you have just demonstrated that what you claimed was a proper "test", isn't actually a test at all.

So we are back to square one where you have no way to test if your beliefs are valid.

PS: it's okay... we all already knew that was the case.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not at all.

Wrong.

Life is a series of little choices that add up to us making big choices.

Sure.
Belief isn't one of those choices though, as you have just demonstrated.

With what you know today, there is NO path at all for you to come to the honest and sincere belief that Thor is god and the cause of thunder and lightning, which is accomplished by smashing his magic hammer on the magic anvil.

You can not be convinced of this because you already understand how it is incompatible with the things you DO know. You can't "choose" to sincerely believe otherwise. Because belief is not a choice.

Belief is the result of being convinced of something. Belief is a compulsion based on certain reasons. And when you learn knew things that alters those reasons, you might be compelled to believe differently. And you would have no choice in that.

When you are convinced of something, the only thing that can "un"convince you, is learning new things. Not simply "deciding otherwise".

The theists don't generally become atheist overnight and vice versa. It's a series of little choices that change who people are.

Not choices. Rather a series of learning facts and / or learning how what you thought were facts actually aren't facts at all. Learning how certain arguments that convinced you are faulty / wrong / fallacious.

Stuff like that.

None of these are arbitrary choices.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not choices. Rather a series of learning facts and / or learning how what you thought were facts actually aren't facts at all. Learning how certain arguments that convinced you are faulty / wrong / fallacious.

Stuff like that.

None of these are arbitrary choices.

There is no fact that can demonstrate that G-d does not exist.
..so while I agree that we can learn new things and form opinions, it is not the only factor as you are claiming.
We most certainly can choose to be open-minded .. or not.

 

[Wandering Monk]

There is no fact that can demonstrate that G-d does not exist.
..so while I agree that we can learn new things and form opinions, it is not the only factor as you are claiming.
We most certainly can choose to be open-minded .. or not.

There is no fact that can demonstrate that Zeus does not exist. So what? Neither are falsifiable. That doesn't mean they are true by default.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no fact that can demonstrate that G-d does not exist.

Nobody claimed otherwise.
You are operating from a false dichotomy.

I don't require reasons to NOT believe something.
I require reasons to positively believe something. And when I then find out that my reasons to believe something are actually lacking, then I stop believing it.

Also, it's not merely a question of god existing or not. A lot more comes into play.

Take Thor for an easy example that we likely both agree on.
Suppose you hold a belief in Thor and thus also the lore that comes with it. Like thunder and lightning being the result of him smashing his hammer.

If you then find out that thunder and lightning actually has rational physical explanations and thus aren't the result at all of any gods smashing any hammers, then that will likely shake your entire belief system.

This might very well trigger you into abandoning your belief in Thor.
Even though no facts were learned that showed Thor to not existing.... Instead, you found out that things that are attributed to Thor, actually don't have anything to do with Thor at all.
So what you previously considered to be evidence FOR Thor, turns out to not be such at all.
Suddenly you are left with a claim of Thor that isn't in evidence. You no longer have any reason to believe it. So you stop believing it.

See?

..so while I agree that we can learn new things and form opinions, it is not the only factor as you are claiming.

I say it mostly is. At no point do "arbitrary choices" come into play when it comes to deciding what you will and will not believe. Belief is not a decision or choice. It's a compulsory conclusion based on reason and evidence. Regardless of that reason and evidence being accurate or not. At the time, you obviously think it's rational and accurate. When you find out that it isn't - that's when you'll likely alter your compulsory conclusions.


Reason and evidence is how you get convinced of things.
So it's also through reason and evidence that you'll change your mind.
Not through arbitrary choice.

We most certainly can choose to be open-minded .. or not.

"open-minded" - I don't think you understand what it means.

Being open-minded doesn't mean that you'll lower your standard of evidence or whatever.
It doesn't mean that you'll "more easily" believe something.

Instead, it just means that you are open to new information. That you are open to the idea that your beliefs might not be correct. That your reasons for belief might not be rational or accurate.

A closed minded person is someone who will refuse to question his beliefs, refuse to accept the possibility that he may be incorrect.

 

[Wildswanderer]

None of these are arbitrary choices.

Why would you think choice is arbitrary? That's not what I said. What we choose to learn or believe is certainly a choice. Every time.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And with that, you have just demonstrated that what you claimed was a proper "test", isn't actually a test at all.

Maybe in your myoptic view of the topic. I suggest you actually learn from scripture so you can know what you speak of.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You think none of us have tried?

Not every agnostics and atheists were always agnostics and atheists, Wildswanderer.

Some have brought up, some converted from other religions or other sects.

And they could leave being Christians for any number of reasons.

Don't make assumptions that just because we are agnostics or atheists, now, that we don't know the church life, or that we don't understand the bible, or that we didn't worship or pray.

Theism, atheism, agnosticism and whatever -ism you could think of, no one has ever established that God or gods exist.

The question then is why did you stop asking? God being silent for awhile doesn't mean he isn't there.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't require reasons to NOT believe something.
I require reasons to positively believe something..

It's the same for everyone.

Take Thor for an easy example..

..or the flying spaghetti monster..

At no point do "arbitrary choices" come into play when it comes to deciding what you will and will not believe. Belief is not a decision or choice. It's a compulsory conclusion based on reason and evidence..

As there is no absolute way of knowing whether the Abrahamic G-d exists, it is up to you whether you believe it.
It is not a case of you being right, and me being wrong.
That is what you imply.

"open-minded" - I don't think you understand what it means.

Being open-minded doesn't mean that you'll lower your standard of evidence or whatever.
It doesn't mean that you'll "more easily" believe something.

Instead, it just means that you are open to new information. That you are open to the idea that your beliefs might not be correct.

Exactly !

 

[gnostic]

The question then is why did you stop asking? God being silent for awhile doesn't mean he isn't there.

That’s not what made me becoming agnostic.

What started to make me doubt was scriptures and Christian teaching, more specifically when I looked deeper into Jesus’ birth - the NT messianic signs/prophecies - weren’t messianic at all.

When I compared Matthew 1:22-23 to the original verses from Isaiah 7 - reading the whole chapter - I came to realisation that Isaiah 7:14 had nothing to do with Mary and the Immanuel had nothing to do with Jesus, because when the gospel quoted Isaiah 7:14, it ignored the following 3 verses. The sign was meant to be read from verse 14 to 17.

The sign of the child (Immanuel) had to do with Ahaz’s war with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram (Isaiah 1:1), and the sign had to do with Assyria’s intervention (2 Kings 15:29 & 2 Kings 16:5-7).

The sign was meant for Ahaz. And it connect the child Immanuel to Assyria.

A second sign very similar to Isaiah 7:14-17 was given in the next chapter - Isaiah 8:3-4. Plus, the name Immanuel was mentioned again, in Isaiah 8:6-8, again in connection with Assyria:

6 “Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah, 7 therefore the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood and, pouring over, will reach up to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

Clearly, the original signs of Immanuel had nothing to do with any messiah, and nothing to do with Jesus and the Virgin Birth.

That made questions all other signs that New Testament claimed about the messiah.

For 19 years, I have accepted Matthew 1’s reinterpretation of Isaiah’s sign, but since 2000, I know the reinterpretation was nothing more than New Testament’s propaganda that take OT verses out-of-context.

That’s what started my road towards agnosticism.

In fact, I didn’t know of anything about agnosticism, back in 2000. It was only after I had joined my first Internet forum in 2003 that I heard about agnosticism for the 1st time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science has failed you then because it's failed to demonstrate how something came from nothing. Or why we have laws and rules nature operates by. Or why 96 percent of what you think are smart apes believe in a deity...why would animals formed by chance invent a belief in a creator?

"Science" doesn't say something came from nothing.
That is what creationists say.

Why would animals invent a belief in a creator? In an attempt to make sense of the world around them, before answers were more readily available . Because we want to believe our dead loved ones (and ourselves) have a place to go where we can see them again someday. Because we are pattern-seeking creatures. Many reasons come to mind. Why did we decide that gods are responsible for lightning or fertility? Because we didn't understand those things once upon a time as we do today. You don't believe Thor creates lightning bolts, do you?

 

[Wildswanderer]

That’s not what made me becoming agnostic.

What started to make me doubt was scriptures and Christian teaching, more specifically when I looked deeper into Jesus’ birth - the NT messianic signs/prophecies - weren’t messianic at all.

When I compared Matthew 1:22-23 to the original verses from Isaiah 7 - reading the whole chapter - I came to realisation that Isaiah 7:14 had nothing to do with Mary and the Immanuel had nothing to do with Jesus, because when the gospel quoted Isaiah 7:14, it ignored the following 3 verses. The sign was meant to be read from verse 14 to 17.

The sign of the child (Immanuel) had to do with Ahaz’s war with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram (Isaiah 1:1), and the sign had to do with Assyria’s intervention (2 Kings 15:29 & 2 Kings 16:5-7).

The sign was meant for Ahaz. And it connect the child Immanuel to Assyria.

A second sign very similar to Isaiah 7:14-17 was given in the next chapter - Isaiah 8:3-4. Plus, the name Immanuel was mentioned again, in Isaiah 8:6-8, again in connection with Assyria:



Clearly, the original signs of Immanuel had nothing to do with any messiah, and nothing to do with Jesus and the Virgin Birth.

That made questions all other signs that New Testament claimed about the messiah.

For 19 years, I have accepted Matthew 1’s reinterpretation of Isaiah’s sign, but since 2000, I know the reinterpretation was nothing more than New Testament’s propaganda that take OT verses out-of-context.

That’s what started my road towards agnosticism.

In fact, I didn’t know of anything about agnosticism, back in 2000. It was only after I had joined my first Internet forum in 2003 that I heard about agnosticism for the 1st time.

Score another one for the corruption of the internet.

 

[Wildswanderer]

"Science" doesn't say something came from nothing.
That is what creationists say.

Why would animals invent a belief in a creator? In an attempt to make sense of the world around them, before answers were more readily available . Because we want to believe our dead loved ones (and ourselves) have a place to go where we can see them again someday. Because we are pattern-seeking creatures. Many reasons come to mind. Why did we decide that gods are responsible for lightning or fertility? Because we didn't understand those things once upon a time as we do today. You don't believe Thor creates lightning bolts, do you?

God created lightning. And science has no answer as to why we are here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The same goes for science texts. Lots of opinions involved there, especially in regards to the past.

Science texts have citations and references that can be checked and verified.