What Religion are you?

[Prpavi]

I've got some bad news, buddy- you might be retarded. The roundness of Earth is observable with the naked eye.

You don't say

[Xant]

You don't say

I do say, for Gurgumul's benefit.

[Gurgumul]

won't believe it till I see it

[Sandersson Jankins]

I find it very interesting that nearly everyone discussing (or arguing, I suppose) these matters have a different working definition of God than myself.

Why is God obligated to be omnipotent and omniscient? Why is God obligated to be alone in his role?

To me, a God is not obligated to be any of these things. To me, a God is an entity of significantly higher order than ourselves; with far greater power for creation and destruction than we have. A God is far removed from human-kind, yet not omnipotent and not omniscient.

Maybe semantics stemming from long, relatively global domination of Abhramic faiths locks most of us into thinking about the question of the existence of God(s) as having two answers; a single omnipotent/omniscient being (almost always benevolent to boot, something Gods are not obligated to be either), or a complete lack of divine presence.

[Xant]

I find it very interesting that nearly everyone discussing (or arguing, I suppose) these matters have a different working definition of God than myself.

Why is God obligated to be omnipotent and omniscient? Why is God obligated to be alone in his role?

To me, a God is not obligated to be any of these things. To me, a God is an entity of significantly higher order than ourselves; with far greater power for creation and destruction than we have. A God is far removed from human-kind, yet not omnipotent and not omniscient.

Maybe semantics stemming from long, relatively global domination of Abhramic faiths locks most of us into thinking about the question of the existence of God(s) as having two answers; a single omnipotent/omniscient being (almost always benevolent to boot, something Gods are not obligated to be either), or a complete lack of divine presence.

Because Abrahamic religions claim God is omnipotent and omniscient?

That's what everyone is discussing, because those are the religions that are on the table when people talk about atheists and theists.

There is absolutely nothing to talk about if you start going on about "possible potential god like being maybe existing."

[Sandersson Jankins]

Because Abrahamic religions claim God is omnipotent and omniscient?

That's what everyone is discussing, because those are the religions that are on the table when people talk about atheists and theists.

There is absolutely nothing to talk about if you start going on about "possible potential god like being maybe existing."

I truthfully didn't go through every little bit of text in this thread (Christ, it's gone on for ages!), so maybe I missed some key shit on why exactly the validity Abrahamic tradition is specifically in question.

Don't misunderstand; I'm not about to get a boner out of using the "LOL U CANT DISPROVE ANYTHING I MIGHT BE RIGHT SO YOU DONT WIN LOL" type of fallacy. I'm not saying ""hey man, just open your miiind you know, there are SO MANY things that might be out there, trippy riiight?" Ya might be seeing that, but it ain't what I'm attempting to say.

I'm attempting to share my own definition of a God that seems to be discarded out-of-hand by most folk. I'm not very vindictive about that either. Based on appearances (and hell, maybe reality as well), my beliefs are eccentric for eccentricity's sake. Special snowflake syndrome, you dig? Although I fervently hold my faith and beliefs, I will concede that I'm effective enough at self-deception to form an illusion of devotion to myself and others, just to be different.

I don't reckon its like that, though.

[Xant]

I truthfully didn't go through every little bit of text in this thread (Christ, it's gone on for ages!), so maybe I missed some key shit on why exactly the validity Abrahamic tradition is specifically in question.

Don't misunderstand; I'm not about to get a boner out of using the "LOL U CANT DISPROVE ANYTHING I MIGHT BE RIGHT SO YOU DONT WIN LOL" type of fallacy. I'm not saying ""hey man, just open your miiind you know, there are SO MANY things that might be out there, trippy riiight?" Ya might be seeing that, but it ain't what I'm attempting to say.

I'm attempting to share my own definition of a God that seems to be discarded out-of-hand by most folk. I'm not very vindictive about that either. Based on appearances (and hell, maybe reality as well), my beliefs are eccentric for eccentricity's sake. Special snowflake syndrome, you dig? Although I fervently hold my faith and beliefs, I will concede that I'm effective enough at self-deception to form an illusion of devotion to myself and others, just to be different.

I don't reckon its like that, though.

Abrahamic religions make very clear (and silly) claims about how things are. They're very popular. That's why they're the ones debated about.

What's the point of discussing the possibility of a Godlike being existing, when you make no claims or assumptions? So you're saying that to you, God is not omnipotent or omniscient, just a superpowered human. Okay, and then? What has this God done? What do you think you know and how do you think you know it?

[Sandersson Jankins]

Abrahamic religions make very clear (and silly) claims about how things are. They're very popular. That's why they're the ones debated about.

What's the point of discussing the possibility of a Godlike being existing, when you make no claims or assumptions? So you're saying that to you, God is not omnipotent or omniscient, just a superpowered human. Okay, and then? What has this God done? What do you think you know and how do you think you know it?

What do I think I know? I do hold knowledge and belief very differently. I know nearly nothing! From a pragmatic perspective, I hold knowledge about things that I've observed and have been informed of by people with adequate credentials. From a more idealistic or philosophy-based (and useless for anything other than intellectual masturbation) perspective, I know absolutely nothing. Of course that brings about a nice conundrum about how I know that I know nothing. Fukken nihilistic bullshitter, I am.

Anyway, I don't claim that deities or Gods are super-powered humans. I place them in an entirely different classification from relatively powerless sentient beings such as ourselves, just as I place sentient beings in a different classification from non-sentient ones. I do; however, disbelieve rather strongly in the existence of a singular, omnipotent/omniscient deity. For that matter, I disbelieve in the simple existence of one, with or without company.

Of course, you must understand that I'm only attempting to share my beliefs and keep my eyes peeled for those of similar belief. I'm not at all attempting to argue or debate philosophy, theology, or any of that ilk.

After all, I recognize that my beliefs are mostly irrational. They are not based upon experimentation or repeated observation. They are not empirically verifiable. Although I'm very eager (without reason, as I'll be worm-food) to see if we can advance to a position in which deities are scientifically verifiable, I understand that it ain't happening anytime soon. Probably.

I have had religious experiences that I would consider wholly ineffable. They cannot be adequately put into words. Very convenient, right? Bah, I've no desire to evangelize or prostelyze to anyone, anyway. I'm just sharing.

If it helps, I find discussion based on the assumption of a dichotomy that appears hilariously arbitrary to me useless, just as you likely find discussion of my beliefs useless.

[Xant]

I still don't understand what you're really getting at. What is the salient point? You've loosely defined what you think God is. That's all. Where are you going with this? You need to open up a bit more about your beliefs if you wish to find others with the same point of view as yourself.

[Sandersson Jankins]

I still don't understand what you're really getting at. What is the salient point? You've loosely defined what you think God is. That's all. Where are you going with this? You need to open up a bit more about your beliefs if you wish to find others with the same point of view as yourself.

As is evident, this isn't going anywhere. Sorry about that.

Due to the nature of my beliefs, I am unfortunately ambiguous when sharing to people I don't know intimately.

I'll gladly concede to you that you likely hold beliefs with greater intellectual validity to them than I do. I've just been very able to find people in real life willing to discuss these issues respectfully and calmly, but unable to find many willing to participate in discussion outside of the prevailing dichotomy of Jehovah/YWHW/The Great I Am and complete inexistence of divine entity. Well, those and the flightly new-age beliefs vaguely based upon Jung's collective unconscious theory.

Regardless, thank you for responding.

[Grytviken]

[Xant]

As is evident, this isn't going anywhere. Sorry about that.

Due to the nature of my beliefs, I am unfortunately ambiguous when sharing to people I don't know intimately.

I'll gladly concede to you that you likely hold beliefs with greater intellectual validity to them than I do. I've just been very able to find people in real life willing to discuss these issues respectfully and calmly, but unable to find many willing to participate in discussion outside of the prevailing dichotomy of Jehovah/YWHW/The Great I Am and complete inexistence of divine entity. Well, those and the flightly new-age beliefs vaguely based upon Jung's collective unconscious theory.

Regardless, thank you for responding.

It makes it hard to respond to you when you're not using insults and being rude. I don't know what to do.

[Sandersson Jankins]

It makes it hard to respond to you when you're not using insults and being rude. I don't know what to do.

You did not blatantly insult me at all. I'm not gonna be the one to start that!

Of course you're very cold and logical. You're downright Suomi in that regard, but you're usually absolutely right in most of your posting. I've not posted much in off-topic (more of a strat sperg, but that's about dead now), but I've read plenty.

As usual, you WERE right about what you posted. We are not going to have a productive nor enlightening conversation because I'm unwilling to be more transparent about my beliefs. Therefore, it is useless to continue! No harsh feelings towards you at all.

[Teeth]

Are you an idiot? Of course we don't. We're talking about whether a higher being exists, not whether I have a shoe on or not.

The reason this methodology works is BECAUSE of the fact that WE DO NOT HAVE an answer to the question "Does a higher being exist?". I'm guessing you didn't bother reading the list of definitions that I so kindly gave to you. Might want to go take a look ;)

Dictionaries are reference books of the languages we use, not the absolute guardians of all that is logical and sound. Just because many people like to use agnosticism to describe a certain thing, that does not make it a sound concept. That said, the definitions you posted do not actually interfere with my point, though a few are pretty crappy. I'll use two of the better definitions to explain:

"Atheism is the absence of belief in any Gods or spiritual beings. The word Atheism comes from a, meaning without, and theism meaning belief in god or gods."

"Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable."

Anyone who does not profess a belief in something spiritual automatically holds the belief that the truth values of metaphysical and religious matters are unknowable. You can never prove the truth or falsity of something metaphysical, unless you believe metaphysicality is real in the first place. All we atheists have is absence of evidence, which is evidence of absence but can never be proof of absence. So all atheists are agnostics. Any atheist who claims to be certain there are no gods misunderstands his own evidence.

You cannot use the term certainty to describe the lack of belief of an atheïst, I do not know for certain that there is no god, much like I do not know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. The probabilities I attach to truth values of either of these statements being 1 means that I live my life as if they are both true, but I am still agnostic for either.

I guess agnosticism as a concept can be used within theïsm to describe people that believe in spirituality despite being aware that they have zero physical evidence, maybe like what Sandersson or Witchcraft have described in this thread. If you believe in spirituality you can probably have "spiritual proof" for your belief that would make you a non-agnostic theist, but that is about as far as it is useful. Any differentiation you do between agnostics and atheists lies outside of their definitions, like that rant that Heskey did about how agnostics are open-minded critical people and atheists are the same type of people that would have been religious extremists a few centuries ago, lol.

[Xant]

The probability of something is never 1 or 0, which makes the whole agnosticism business completely pointless. It applies to everything in different degrees. So getting righteously indignant over the semantics is ridiculous.

And my, my. Teeth, you've went and gotten yourself educated at some point. I'm surprised you even noted that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, considering "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is pretty much considered a truism by many. Thanks for that, Carl Sagan.