Religion question?

estebanrey said:
I don't know why you guys are finding this so hard to understand.

Q) Does god exist
Here you can either say yes, no or I don't know. Saying yes doesn't make you a theist, saying no doesn't make you an atheist (well not directly anyway). Saying I don't know makes you an agnostic.

Q) Do you believe in and/or worship a (specific) god
You can only answer this yes or no. If you say yes you are a theist and saying no means you are an atheist .
Click to expand...

Saying "yes" to A) automatically means the answer to B) is also "yes" (how can you say god exists if you don't believe in it?)

If answering "yes" to B) makes you a theist, then it logically follows that saying "yes" to A) makes you a theist.

Saying "no" to A) means you are definitively saying "there is no god" - this is impossible to prove, therefore what you are actually saying is "I don't believe in god despite a lack of evidence to prove he does or doesn't exist". Answering "I don't know" is therefore (in my opinion) the only correct answer to question A) based on the evidence currently available to us.

Answering "no" to B) could mean 2 things - i) I believe god doesn't exist (atheism) or ii) I don't actively believe god exists, neither do I actively believe he doesn't exist as I do not have sufficient evidence to make a decision (agnosticism).


All that being said, technically, it's possible to be both theist and atheist at the same time; many religious people are the most vocal atheists out there - vehemently denying the existence of any gods but their own.
 
Last edited:
Gilly said:
You can argue what the words mean as much as you want, but that won't stop atheism being a faith based position
Click to expand...
In your opinion based on a narrow interpretation. Doesn't make it factual or correct :)

Gilly said:
I do not believe in god (or gods) and do not actively disbelieve in god (or gods) either and am therefore neither a theist nor an atheist.
Click to expand...
You're an atheist (or more specifically atheist agnostic) - you've rejected the belief in gods. That's not to say you've denied their existence, you've just rejected the belief, based on what has been presented and what is observable to you.
 
Last edited:
koolpc said:
People find it hard to believe in god without proof of some kind or another. The big majority of christians etc can live without ever having to look for that proof. We have massive amounts of faith, which some one here would call blind faith, i dont. Having a strong belief in a God, in a religion, is only able because of 'Faith'.

You will always get arguments for and against with those needing proof always having a go at people who believe without any evidence what-so-ever.

I am proud of my beliefs but if anyone wants to think otherwise then that is up to them.

An atheist doesnt need faith, just proof.
Click to expand...

But why do you have faith? What actual reason is there for your faith? Or is it just how you were brought up? I'm genuinely curious because I really struggle to get my head around faith as you have described it above.
 
estebanrey said:
I don't know why you guys are finding this so hard to understand.

Q) Does god exist
Here you can either say yes, no or I don't know. Saying yes doesn't make you a theist, saying no doesn't make you an atheist (well not directly anyway). Saying I don't know makes you an agnostic.

Q) Do you believe in and/or worship a (specific) god
You can only answer this yes or no. If you say yes you are a theist and saying no means you are an atheist .

You can't "not know" whether you believe and worship a specific god or not.

The point of all this is Athiesm is NOT the rejection and denial of a god's existence (as posed in the first question above) it is the lack or belief and/or worship in one.

Now I'll admit the word atheist has been misused a lot in recent years, to portray a Richard Dawkinesque type who not only has a lack of belief but also a fervant desire to disprove any belief is stupid and I can understand why so many people thus want to distance themselves from the word by claiming they are 'agnostic' (makes you seem less controversial and all) but it simply is a different issue.

Anyone without a knowledge of god, be that from being too young to be taught about the subject or just never come into contact with religion (let's say some aboriginal tribe that hasn't come into contact with anyone else) is an atheist. Likewise anyone that doesn't actively believe in or worship a specific god is an atheist. They are all 'without God', the very definition of the word.
Click to expand...

Atheism is all those things...the problem is that Atheism has a very broad definition depending on a number of factors...context the least of them...if we take your binary position of whether you can believe in a (specific) God for example being yes or no...this is true (to a point), but also implies that through specificity that someone could be both a theist and an atheist at the same time by not believing in the Christian God (atheist) but believing in the Hindu God (Theist).

Originally the term Atheist was not simply to convey a disbelief (or lack of belief) it was a specific pejorative term used to describe someone who actively rejected what was at the time a consensus on the existence of God...you have it backwards. The broadening of the term came later.

I think in all these debates we have to treat the term Atheist within the context of the position it is being used to support otherwise we just end up mired in these pointless and largely unresolvable discussions on semantics.

Agnosticism on the other hand is the position that the truth value of such claims either positive or negative is unknown. It is about scepticism rather than acceptance or rejection.
 
Last edited:
shoes said:
But why do you have faith? What actual reason is there for your faith? Or is it just how you were brought up? I'm genuinely curious because I really struggle to get my head around faith as you have described it above.
Click to expand...
In most cases, one has a Christian faith because they were brought up (somewhat indoctrinated) that way. If they were born in New Delhi, for example, they'd probably be Hindu. There's nothing divine or special about it... it is simply circumstance.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
You're an atheist (or more specifically atheist agnostic) - you've rejected the belief in gods. That's not to say you've denied their existence, you've just rejected the belief, based on what has been presented and what is observable to you.
Click to expand...

No I'm not :)
 
Hatter The Mad said:
In most cases, one has a Christian faith because they were brought up (somewhat indoctrinated) that way. If they were born in New Delhi, for example, they'd probably be Hindu. There's nothing divine or special about it... it is simply circumstance.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this somewhat make a mockery of faith then, as if there was a single god then wouldn't the whole planet envisage and worship him/her/it in the same way?
 
shoes said:
Doesn't this somewhat make a mockery of faith then, as if there was a single god then wouldn't the whole planet envisage and worship him/her/it in the same way?
Click to expand...

God works in mysterious ways!

or

The devil is doing it to try and stop us believing in god!

Take your pick.
 
Haggisman said:
God works in mysterious ways!

or

The devil is doing it to try and stop us believing in god!

Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Richard-Dawkins-Devil.jpg


:D
 
Castiel said:
Atheism is all those things...the problem is that Atheism has a very broad definition depending on a number of factors...context the least of them...if we take your binary position of whether you can believe in a (specific) God for example being yes or no...this is true (to a point), but also implies that through specificity that someone could be both a theist and an atheist at the same time by not believing in the Christian God (atheist) but believing in the Hindu God (Theist).
Click to expand...

Yes an no. A Christian could certainly say they were atheistic about a non Abrahamic god but they couldn't say they were 'an atheist'.

Castiel said:
Originally the term Atheist was not simply to convey a disbelief (or lack of belief) it was a specific pejorative term used to describe someone who actively rejected what was at the time a consensus on the existence of God...you have it backwards. The broadening of the term came later.
Click to expand...

The etymological use of the word and whether it was used as an insult or not is irrelevant to it's meaning (which is simply 'without god').

Castiel said:
Agnosticism on the other hand is the position that the truth value of such claims either positive or negative is unknown.
Click to expand...

But by definition everyone then is agnostic (as I said earlier) because no one can claim to KNOW either way.

Even Richard Dawkins admits on many occasion he cannot conclusively say there is no God and does not claim to absolutely KNOW there isn't one but would you call him an agnostic?

This is my point, anyone that claims they definitely know for certain a god or gods exists or not is lying. So that kind of makes your definition of agnostic rather useless in a practical sense.

When I tell people I'm an atheist, they shouldn't think "That means he can categorically deny the existence of a god",they should think "Oh he just doesn't prey, worship a god, or accept religious tales about them are likely to be true".
 
Gilly said:
I would tell you that the sun doesn't rise, has never risen and is completely ignorant of insignificant mortal beings and their relative location on a slightly less so but still insignificant ball of rock.
Click to expand...

Well that's very helpful isn't it? Would you care to actually address the point?
 
People seem to be faffing around the side points here rather than whether God exists or not. Instead of arguing about the logistics of word use, we should discuss whether we think "He" exists.

The first problem stems from your definition of God. People discussing God could be talking about a man in the sky, a consciousness, a man at a computer playing simuniverse, whatever.

I personally believe in God mainly due to the fact I don't think the Big Bang could just happen, it's a ridiculous proposition. I also don't buy that something so beautiful could just happen, it's not possible I'm sorry.

Also I don't think life could just happen, how did that first single cell organism form? On its own? I believe in evolution, and God. Crazy right?

I also believe in an immortal soul, I don't buy ourselves being a mixed bag of chemical reactions, we have free will and exercise it daily. Science provides us with a bottom up representation of reality, but we have a top down one too.

Religion and believing in God are 2 different things. Religion is outdated, and there can be only be one truth, therefore I'd suppose they were all wrong. Fallible because they were created by man, looking to make a few quid.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
But by definition everyone then is agnostic (as I said earlier) because no one can claim to KNOW either way.
Click to expand...

Well that's not true is it? Most religious people will say they 'know' because of their faith. The same is true of atheists.

They know because that is what they have decided or been taught.
 
fluffmct said:
Those sound like things you'd like to believe as opposed to things that are actually demonstrable
Click to expand...

What? In a test tube?

People demanding scientific proof of God when the two simply do not overlap is absurd.

Edit- and yes I admit I'm typing like a retard today - manflu
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom