john5746 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 That is called "Ignostic" and is a modifier of the atheist position. or maybe Apatheism, which is where I have been floating towards. I like ignostic better, because it expresses the frustration at the infinite concepts of God that everyone seems to think we all share. As if a deist god that started the big bang is the same concept as one that helps Pittsburgh win the Superbowl. It's hard to have one stance on all these prospects. I may not believe in any of them, but not with the same conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xhenia Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 no, there is no evidence to support any god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empty Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 believe it if you said " Oh my god " if you fear the dark , when you know there is nothing to afraid about it. if you fear the death and you know there is nothing to lose if bother your self to think he exist or not exist . when you don't believe it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) ........... Edited January 29, 2009 by DrDNA may be construed as insensitive to those lacking humor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Ignosticism and apatheism are different but not mutually exclusive positions. It's apatheism that considers it an unimportant question, ignosticism that considers it meaningless (at least without clarification). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 no, there is no evidence to support any god. Faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 And I will now remind everyone to again read posts #2 and #18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) And I will now remind everyone to again read posts #2 and #18. Maybe it's just my own narrow-mindedness, but I'm not so sure which parts of the thread you are referring to iNow. Is it this part: I don't believe in god for the same reason that I don't believe in the tooth fairy or unicorns. For that matter, I'm not sure how this post can even exist; for example, how the question in the OP can even be asked, without violating the policy against "criticism of another's views" or the spirit of that which was iterated in #2 and #18 . I'm confused Edited January 29, 2009 by DrDNA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 We're OK for now. We just don't want to get into, "Ur stoopid fer bleeving dat!" or "Really? I think you're wrong because...." That way lies madness. Madness, I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 No criticism was present in my post, DrDNA, despite your hypersensitivity about comments that may peripherally apply to your own faith. I stated precisely why I don't believe in god, and my views are protected from criticisms in this thread just like yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 No criticism was present in my post, DrDNA, despite your hypersensitivity about comments on your faith. I stated precisely why I don't believe in god, and my views are protected from criticisms in this thread as well. "I don't believe in god for the same reason that I don't believe in the tooth fairy or unicorns." does not bear a resemblance to "Ur stoopid fer bleeving dat!" ??? Furthermore, unlike comparing a person's or a group of persons' belief(s) in a higher power(s), faith, or religion to the "tooth fairy", asking a logical question is not necessarily a criticism, was not intended as such, and should not interpreted as such. If you'd care to explain to me how comparing one's religion to the tooth fairy is not a criticism, either here or off line, I'd certainly be receptive. It (my question) was not meant to be a criticism of your or anyone else's views and should not be interpreted as such. It was a simple question, posed directly towards your statement, containing a reference to the statement in question, and a request for clarification. Is my directly questioning your statement some sort of heresy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 It's close enough to criticism for me. Look, can we just stick to answering the question? A simple "yes" or "no, I'm agnostic" would do quite nicely. As soon as you start applying reasons you start insulting people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 "Yes" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnolp04 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 God and science don't have to be mutually exclusive - some of the world's top astronomers are Jesuit priests and they work for the pope out of an observatory on Mount Graham in Arizona and at the pope's summer palace just outside Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I htink a better question would be how does one define "god". Even agnostics and athiests have definitions of the term they work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I htink a better question would be how does one define "god". Even agnostics and athiests have definitions of the term they work with. Indeed. Hence my post #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I agre with the need for better definition. Without such a definition, one possible argument goes like this. There are 100 billion star systems in our galaxy, and about the same number of galaxies in the universe. At least, that is the current best estimate. This means a total of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 star systems in the universe. The probability that somewhere in that lot lives an alien civilisation so advanced that it is God-like is almost 100%. Thus, God exists. QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Only if you're willing to ignore the leap from 'God-like' to 'God' (actual). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Sorry if this has been covered (I'm being lazy), but what's the label for somebody who thinks it's impossible to believe, or not believe in something (God in this case) when there's no objective definition for that something. In simpler terms, how am I supposed to make any conclusions whether something exists, if I have no idea what that something is. That would be me...I certainly don't want to debate this, I just want to slot myself into a category, like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 That would be Ignosticism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 That would be Ignosticism Thanks, I just skipped through and saw that mentioned...sorry for the laziness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 To Glider Going from God-like to God is easy, due to the limitations of our human perspective. However, from a practical stand point, God-like becomes God if that is included in the definition, and my post was about the definition. In other words, we must define 'what is a god?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 To GliderGoing from God-like to God is easy, due to the limitations of our human perspective. However, from a practical stand point, God-like becomes God if that is included in the definition, and my post was about the definition. In other words, we must define 'what is a god?' Isn't "creator of the universe" one of the most basic components of the monotheistic definition? When I hear "God" I think monotheism, whereas believing in "Gods" polytheistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamey2k9 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 my opinion is no how can there be a loving god that would forgive anyone for anything when there is so much death sorrow conflict in the world surely if there was a god he would stop all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abskebabs Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I voted for the 3rd option, and I don't view the choices in this poll as inconsistent, despite the remarks earlier posters made. I consider myself agnostic, though I consider this to be quite different to being atheist. I'll illustrate with an example. Suppose you have a coin I cannot see, flip it and ask me whether it lands on heads or tails. If you ask me whether I believe it is heads, and I say no, it doesn't mean I believe it's tails, it could well be I just don't know, and don't care to believe in an outcome. I thought this clarification might be useful, and I'd be interested to see if anyone could counter my above semantic point. To me, it removes the need for a distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts