Do you believe in "GOD" ,and the "Great" beyond ?

It's a historical account of anything out of the ordinary that happened to a bunch of sheepherders.
Of course the shit is going to look weird. This is the culmination of a couple million years of improbability.

To "miracle": As far as I can tell, if there is a plan; you aren't supposed to know.
It could be a game, it could be breeding superbeings for an unknown purpose. Fuck, it could be a giant science experiment (OHAY, GUYS: I'm going to pour about a week of my life into a blob of spacetime. You wanna see what it turns into this go round?)
Doesn't matter to me. I just pretend like I know the rules, and get on anyway.

God's been dead since WWI. I'm not a fan of Nietzsche, but I like his way of thinking there. I like the romantic idea of losing "God", it holds the naive implication that at some point we had "God".

I believe in the god of war and chaos....

#12a: "I posted for the lulz"/"internet, srs bsns"

You've been owned thoroughly and incapable of coming back with an intelligent retort. So instead, you claim that your opponent is overly serious, or that you were never serious in the first place. This is an attempt to convince yourself that, had you taken the topic seriously, you would have won it easily.

#12b: "I have a life, unlike you."

Similar to #12a, and usually limited to gaming forums, one method of making the wnner of an argument look bad is implying that the only reason he won the argument is because he devotes too much time in the topic.

"Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible... The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural."
Then you make the leap of logic of saying "I do believe the existence of an omnipotent one"

Intellectual dishonesty FTW!


Yes it is. Old piece of shit excuse is old. When a dickload of alleged psychics fail at being psychic, that lack of psychic shit happening is evidence of lack of psychic power.


Do you happen to accept the finding of, say, genetic predispositions in humans?

It depends, I'm a Christian specifically a Roman Catholic but I don't have a strong faith unlike other people do. But still I somehow believe that there is a God and him alone. And what the hell is the "Great" beyond you are talking about?

Long stry short: We'll never know as we'll never be able to prove Gods' in/existence.

Long story long:
I'm definitely no atheist, but I don't believe in God per se.

We can in no way disproof of prove the existence of a greater being/force and I am willing to accept, eager even, to accept that there is one. You know, I don't WANT to be maggot-food when I die; I want there to be a paradise of ever happiness and all that shit. But I just can't bring myself to believe that there is. But at the same time the universe is - in my opinion - way to complex both to be created by chance and to be created by any sentient being.

I used to call myself a christian, heck, I was even an active member of my church youth-group thing, until I realized that I don't believe in the christian god. That was just a label for any higher being that I naively cling to in a hope that I and those I love won't just disappear when they die. And since it felt really wrong teaching teenagers about something with a sound principle, but still something I didn't believe in, i quit.

I still cling to the hope that there is a higher being out there that will let me live on in my own, personal paradise when I die, but I refuse to label that hope.

I've got some bad news for you, you're an atheist (atheist-agnostic to be exact).

Athesim is denying the possibility of a diety. There IS no god, never have, never will. I'm willing to accept that there is. And Agnostic-atheism is most commonly referred to as "Not believing in the existence of a god, but accepting that there is no proof for it."

Sill, I neither believe or don't. If you have to put a label on it, I'm agnostic.

That's a pretty bullshit definition, I think.

"Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God."

I hope the source you posted yourself will suffice.

if not I hope that at least EB will be enough.







There is no such thing as a personal definition of an already defined philosophical practice. You can argue that the meaning of the word "atheos" not necessarily means "a belief in the nonexistence of gods" but that really has nothing to do with the thoughts behind atheism.

And yet, this really doesn't matter does it?

It does, since it says, "This definition does not capture the atheism of many atheists, which is based on an indifference to the issue of God's existence."


The bolded part I agree with.


More a simple statement than philosophical practice. Agnosticism (the way T.H. Huxley thought of it) is more a "philosophical practice." It's like, "Oh man, I wish that the statement 'I don't believe in god' was condensed into one word."

This also helps agnosticism not be mutually exclusive to atheism, the way I see it.

But being indifferent to the question if God exist or not shouldn't make you an atheist. To be any kind of theist you need to have an opinion on the matter.
But, in my own opinion, wouldn't indifference to the fact if God exists or not be closer to the agnostic thoughts that we can't know if he does? As indifference neither tries to claim if he does or not.


This basically states the same thing that the other tow sentences did. An absence of belief would mean that you don't believe deities exists right?
Alright, I'm not even sure where I'm going with this but.. Claiming that you don't believe in deities are the same as claiming that they don't exist right? Otherwise you'd not be able to believe in your own statement.




You're right, atheism is more of a statement than an actual practice, but you got the point, the thought behind atheism has a defined meaning.
Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to atheism, I never stated that. But, agnosticism is also depending on theism, as it is a kind of middle-ground between the two.

Which is that I don't believe in god.


No, not really. The natural default to something is non belief. We are born with non belief in a god (i.e. atheist), yet that doesn't mean we claim that one doesn't exist.


Lol

I repeat, "Intellectual dishonesty FTW!"

Protip: When you stop having faith in the existence of something you openly admit you don't know exists, you'll seem less dumb.

That means you're not indifferent about god. That means you're an atheist yes. Indifference and non-belief are two different things.


We are born being oblivious to the concept of god. Not meaning atheist. To be an atheist you have to make the conscious choice not to believe based on basic understanding of the concept. Claiming that you don't believe in deities but at the same time not claiming their nonexistence is just contradictory.