what religion?

Robert wojci · Post by **Robert wojci** » 30 May 2006 12:31

shred villain wrote:mormon. PLEASE NO SOUTH PARK JOKES!

hah i love that episode..did you find it funny or offensive?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 Jun 2006 22:12

I was bored so I thought I'd write a rant about agnosticism. I really can't understand agnosticism at all, more so than any other philosophy about religion. I guess my only explenation is that agnosticism is really apathy - which is probably why so many young people call themselves agnostics.

There are two main reasons why I think it's a load of crap.

First proving things is really hard - some would say impossible. Certainly it is impossible to prove anything without making some kind of assumption. What is even harder than proving things is proving that things don't exist. I would say it is impossible to prove the non existence of an entity. You can prove to your self (assuming your senses are correct) that something doesn't exist in a particular place - ie. there is no pink elephant in this room - I am happy to accept what my eyes tell me as proof (unless the elephant is really small) but I am completely unable to prove that pink elephants do not exist. However using logic I feel quite comfortable in saying that I am convinced that pink elephants do not exist even though I can't prove it. The reason for that is because I have no evidence that suggests that they do exist and very strong evidence that says they do not exits (ie. nobody has ever claimed to have seen one) - in this case a lack of evidence is really evidence for non existence because we can look at other weird things that do exist - for example giant squids - and see that clearly if one person claims to have seen one it would be reported. It simply doesn't make any sense to believe in an animal when there is no reason to believe in it.

I'm sure you can see where I'm heading with this - as far as I can see there is no real evidence for the existence of God - and everything claimed to be evidence can easily be explained with a explenation based on logic and reasoning (which is what science is). There is simply no reason to believe that God exists. If you're going to call yourself an agnostic and say that you don't know that if God exists or not clearly to maintain consistant beliefs you also have to say that you don't know if pink elephants exist or not. Agnostics often say that if they saw evidence of God they would believe in him. This has to be one of the most pointless arguements ever. I am a staunch athiest - I am quite convinced that God does not exist but obviously if God appeared in front of me right now and said "I do exist, and I have deposited a trillion dollars into your bank account to prove it" and then I rang up the bank and found a trillion dollars in my bank account I would believe in God. I am happy to admit that there is a theoretical chance that I am wrong and God does exist. The reason I am an athiest is because I don't believe that genuine evidence for the existence of God will ever show up. As I see it, an agnostic believes that they don't know if evidence will show up or not. Which is ridiculous - obviously none of us "know" if evidence will show up or not - but we can use logic to see that there is no reason to think that it will.

The other reason I don't understand agnosticism is because of the possibility that I am wrong and God does exist. Now if we hypothetically assume this to be the case for the moment - it strikes me that being agnostic is a fairly stupid position to take. An agnostic is unsure if God exists or not but isn't going to worship god at all. There are basically four options on this issue. 1. You worship god, he doesn't exist and you have wasted your time. 2. You worship god, he does exist and you go to heaven and experience eternal bliss. 3. You don't worship god, he doesn't exist, you have saved some time. 4. You don't worship god, he does exist, you experience eternal damnation. Now if you're unsure of the existence of something but choosing one thing gives you a 50% chance of eternal bliss and choosing the other option gives you a 50% chance of eternal damnation I find it very hard to understand why agnostics don't worship God anyway. Certainly if I were in that position it makes complete logical sense to me to worship God rather than to risk going to hell forever.

This is why I think agnosticism is really a philosophy of apathy. I think an agnostic is somebody who doesn't care about religion, has not really given it much thought and has done very little research. An athiest is somebody who has done the research and having used logic to come up with an answer has seen that there is no reason to believe in God.

I was interested to see Joplick put forward that his religion is "existentialist" - I wouldn't consider that a religious position since there plenty of Christian existentialists and also those that have put foward athiest or agnostic views. If we're going to put forward our philosophy on life I guess I'm a Nihilist although I don't want to be and I certainly think it is one of the most unhealthy philosophies to have. However I find it impossible to ultimately justify any action or see any ultimate point to anything. I mean obviously there are points to things on a surface level - for example the point of this post is to put forward my opinions on religion and philosophy. However what can that possibly hope to achieve? Even if everybody became totally convinced that everything I said was correct and convinced everybody they knew until everybody on the planet had the same beliefs that I have - eventually everything is going to die, life cannot possibly survive on Earth forever and even if it did - it simply doesn't matter. Life has no goal or purpose - it came about because of random coincidences and although it continues to improve and adapt to its environment - this is not because of some purpose but just because those that don't adapt die quicker. I like existentialism - especially the idea that we have controll of our lives but I don't really believe that that's true. I don't think we ultimately have free will it all. Obviously we have some degree of free will but I think if you could start the universe again from the big bang under the exact same circumstances of this time eventually the exact same outcome would occur as with this universe - right down to me choosing the same random number right now (negative pi). Basically we are just the interaction of particles following the "laws" of physics. There is no way of predicting the outcome of those interactions (uncertainty principle etc.) but that does not mean the reactions won't be exactly the same given the same circumstances every time. This is obviously a hard thing to accept - especially because our brains are so complicated but we have to understand that there is a difference between how we'd like things to be and how they are and I guess equally a difference between what is good for us to believe and the truth.

Larson · Post by **Larson** » 05 Jun 2006 09:01

here are basically four options on this issue. 1. You worship god, he doesn't exist and you have wasted your time. 2. You worship god, he does exist and you go to heaven and experience eternal bliss. 3. You don't worship god, he doesn't exist, you have saved some time. 4. You don't worship god, he does exist, you experience eternal damnation.

There are a lot more than four possible outcomes. Heaven and hell only pertain to certain religions, which I personally disagree with. But I do not dismiss the fact that they could exist, even though I doubt it. It is impossible to know if there is a higher being, so why assume that there is not one. It's a crazy world, but somtimes I like to think that there is purpose

I think an agnostic is somebody who doesn't care about religion, has not really given it much thought and has done very little research.

I consider myself agnostic, and I think about religon every day. I don't understand how anybody can be anything other than agnostic. It's not that I don't think about religion, it's just that i can't possibly know. I could never follow an organized religion, because religions were not founded by God, but by man. And being an atheist is just depressing, but that's not why I'm not an atheist, I just can't say that there is no God. Nothing can be proven, so why assume that you know the answer.

Iron Clad Ben · Post by **Iron Clad Ben** » 05 Jun 2006 09:28

The term is agnostic is often misused. You cannot be just "agnostic". You can be agnostic-theist or an agnostic-athiest.

---------------------------------------------------------

Q: What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

A: It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you can prove. For any particular god that you can imagine, a "theist" is one who has a belief in that god. An "atheist" is one who does not have a belief in the god. A "gnostic" is one who believes that the god can be proved to exist, and an "agnostic" is one who believes that the god cannot be proved to exist.

Notice that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don't think one can prove the existence or nonexistence of gods, but you don't choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true and there is no word to describe this. You could call such a person an "untheist", perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a "gnostic atheist", one who doesn't believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved.

So there are four possible ways one could be.

1. Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but it can't be proved
2. Gnostic-Theist: believes it can be proved that gods exist
3. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can't be proved
4. Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist

Case 3 is sometimes referred to as "weak atheism" and case 4 is sometimes referred to as "strong atheism". Only strong atheism positively asserts that there are no gods.

Larson · Post by **Larson** » 05 Jun 2006 12:32

I don't fall in any of those four catagories, because I question if god exists or not, and I don't believe that his existance or non-existance can be proven.

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 05 Jun 2006 12:35

its impossible to proove that you exist. of course its impossible to proove god exists.
trying to prove the existence of things is a waste of time. you have to proove that you exist first so you can be doing the prooving which is impossible anyway...

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 05 Jun 2006 21:54

As I said, it's impossible to prove the non existence of anything.

If you believe that God might exist - to you also agree that pink elephants might exist?

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 06 Jun 2006 07:40

God decides what we may perceive, pink elephants (who aren't also gods) do not. Inappropriate comparison.

james · Post by **james** » 19 Jun 2006 00:30

Deities are a copout.
Agnostic is a copout.
Eternity is nothingness, thus there cannot be an afterlife, eliminating any reason for a god to exist, besides the fact that god would have to be infinite (undefinable) to exist in the first place, which by definition means god cannot exist.
Whether you accept it or not eternity is coming for ya.

This is all pointless of course.

Carlos · Post by **Carlos** » 19 Jun 2006 03:41

atheist

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 Jun 2006 09:24

god would have to be infinite (undefinable) to exist in the first place, which by definition means god cannot exist.

Do you understand that nearly all religions already define God infinitely? All 5 of the majors contend that God is everything, and is of course, in everything.

Of course it doesn't mean that God cannot exist. That's silly. By allowing to notice God for the sake of your argument, you're conjuring up a force that created the universe, and thus nothing would be impossible, since he is everything.

Your whole point is really just mush. Sorry.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 19 Jun 2006 17:09

How self important of humans to assert that God cannot exist simply because their puny brains can't possible begin to define His entirety.

smpdustin15 · Post by **smpdustin15** » 19 Jun 2006 18:25

religion is a way to make people feel good about death. and saying that gods a dick because people are assholes is crazy. thats like saying your dads a asshole because you are. people are people. bibles a set of rules interpreted by a million people over a million years. the ideas still there its a easy book it says treat others good and theyll treat you good.

pick and chose your own religion and be nice

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 21 Jun 2006 10:25

james_dean wrote:How self important of humans to assert that God cannot exist simply because their puny brains can't possible begin to define His entirety.

How humble of man to believe they are created in the image of their God.

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 21 Jun 2006 21:40

thats another part of the bible that really shouldnt be looked at literally.
god created the whole world in his own image, humans, plants, mountains, elephants etc...

sen · Post by **sen** » 22 Jun 2006 06:26

I disagree with that.

Goad created humans in his image in the way that he gave us the same qualities that he has: Love, Justice, Kindness, ect.

As we get further and further away from the perfection we had when Adam first lived, we also get further and further from showing these wonderful qualities.

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 22 Jun 2006 08:59

adam and eve didnt actually exist.
evolution is real.
genisis is a metaphor, and a good one.
dont take the entire bible literaly.

james · Post by **james** » 23 Jun 2006 02:59

So how far away from love, justice and kindness am I Sen?

I always thought I contained all of the above, but apparantly you have to be an idiot to.

Quite the paradox.

james · Post by **james** » 23 Jun 2006 03:12

Oh yeah, I forgot a few things.

James dean and Brainbridge, you're missing the point entirely. In fact it is flying right over your puny brains. It's really a shame.

Sorry.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 23 Jun 2006 17:30

Actually I wasn't referring to your brain specifically but human brains in general as compared to God. Please do enlighten me as to what your point was?