Will God die out once we attain immortality?

[Blackking]

lmao, what are you talking about? Just because you say there's no such thing as agnostic atheism doesn't make it so. And just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. One, it's not like someone just made it up yesterday. It's a term that's been used now for over a century. And two, the notion that someone is both an atheist and an agnostic does not contradict. Obviously you don't understand the difference between knowledge and belief, and you don't understand what atheism is.

lol, I understand what atheism is. And even if I didn't the definition is online. The definition of agnostic and theist are also online, so I don't understand why you don't get that just because something is a word for centuries doesn't mean that that phrase is not contradictory. Talk about semantics. So one could say, I'm an atheist... but because the proof of God existence or non-existence can't be proven.. then "I'm agnostically athiest" (a phrase blackking made up, lol) A person could say that, but then that person is at that point no longer an atheist, aka, "I foolishly believe there are no deities." He is instead an agnostic. Which is my point... if I one day wake up like, "damn there is no proof God existence, and it's not logical to see design in the universe or it's complex organisms"- Then at that point I'm agnostic. If I was theist I would believe in deities. I understand the difference between knowledge and belief- I'm not sure that you understand why the wiki pages state, "Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge." Someone can believe they know or they can simply not know. Not knowing makes you agnostic, not some contradictory term.

Okay, what justification do you have for these beliefs? Do you not agree that over the past century people have been leaving organized religion for non-belief?

I have similar justification that you have for the belief I was responding to. And people have always left religion, not just in the past century. People have also taken on belief systems with a high power.

I don't make such assumptions. I was only making an observation about you specifically. When did I ever say most religious people believe that??

lol, if you chose, we can pretend that the implications aren't based in generalizations and assumptions.

Leaving room for alternate possibilities does not make it reasonable to believe in supernatural claims. I, like many other atheists, agree that it's possible that a deity is responsible for creating the universe. The difference is we realize that the time it's reasonable to believe a possibility is also reality is when it's supported by good evidence. Theists make the assumption that the god hypothesis is true, and sometimes close their eyes to the scientific findings that contradict that position. And they rationalize it by calling it "faith". Faith is not a pathway to truth.

You are agnostic. And you don't have to close your eyes to science to have faith in the obvious.

Lastly, it doesn't matter that there are some attitudes from atheists that turn people off. There are plenty of actions from Christians & Muslims that turn members from those groups off too.... do you just abandon Islam because some people choose to suicide bomb in the name of Allah? No, that's foolish. Now, people may not accept the atheist label and choose some other term, and that's fine I suppose. There are plenty people who don't know anything about atheism other than what they've heard in the pews *cough cough*. But if they are deist or non-denominational or agnostic that's still one step away from organized religion, and one closer to my position -- Agnostic Atheism.

breh it's 2013. The time of no one knows about atheist. Religion is dominating peoples views and mind. Child and teenagers only get their ideas and philosophies from their parents.... etc etc.. All that sh1t is not the reality of how things are today. For example, the majority of young Christians support gay rights. They aren't getting those ideas from church... they get that because most young people support it and they are young people. Yeah there are people who claim some weird form of agnostic atheism, but in reality , well imo, those people just don't want to look foolish by out right saying that the universe is void of intelligence in it's creation and that complex life came solely from inanimate matter. Since there is no proof to contradict theology, it's just easier to say I don't know.. but still seem like a rational atheist.

Okay this was exactly my point. We haven't found the real answers, so it's irrelevant if the scientists who are discovering these things currently believe in a god. The fact that Einstein and Lemaitre believed in some sort of deity does not come as a surprise when there was no prevailing alternative to the god hypothesis. But now that other scientists have built on their work, and found more evidence that supports Big Bang cosmology, it becomes more reasonable to accept these alternatives to god. Theists are not immune to having difficulty accepting alternate possibilities.



Interesting. Would like to see some data that supports this. And it's entirely possible for Islam and atheism to be growing simultaneously. Honestly, I don't know. Link it up.



Well, that's because it can't. If we agree that belief is an active process, then either an individual believes or does not. Agnosticism isn't some third option. If you claim to be an agnostic that doesn't follow any customs associated with a religion, and you don't think that the universe necessitates the existence of a god, then you are also a de facto atheist.



Again, none of this really matters on the topic of what might be in store for the future. These ideas about a universe without god are relatively new. How can you possibly think that religious belief as a whole will increase once we have more confirming evidence for the origins of the universe and evolution?

You can say it's irrelevant that there are scientist that believe in God, that religious people have developed the core of what scientific theory is built on, and that technological advances that help all humans are created at times by religious people-- yea you call irrelevance until the assumption and statements are made that religious people hate and/or don't understand science. The atheist who speaks like that, makes it relevant by demonstrating their ignorance.

Fastgrowing Islam winning converts in Western world - CNN
Also, there are people like me, born of a atheist and a non practicing Christian that converted and practices Islam. Islam has a good way of presenting itself to open people.

Ok.

There are intelligent and logical people that aren't scientist. lol, atheist regurgitate simple popular theories to seem smart, and quote that over 80 percent of scientist don't believe in God or are agnostic. well, Over 30 percent of scientist and over 80 percent of other people believe in some sort of higher power. By your logic, you would think that all the people in advance technological career fields would be atheist, or that the majority of nurses and other people in medical career fields would be atheist or that all the logical people on the planet would at the very least be agnostic. But this is not the case. You say atheism is basically new. Well Human beings are basically new. Regardless there have been atheist since the 16th century, and some rare cases in ancient times. We don't know that the future holds, but you can't assume that more people will become non believers. I say that there will be more agnostics. As far as atheism... it will be like homosexuality, become louder and slightly increase, but not become the norm.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

People have differing definitions of atheism and agnosticism.. to me they're exactly the same thing the term atheist just has an aggressive bad connotation to it.

 

[NoMayo15]

lol, I understand what atheism is. And even if I didn't the definition is online. The definition of agnostic and theist are also online, so I don't understand why you don't get that just because something is a word for centuries doesn't mean that that phrase is not contradictory. Talk about semantics. So one could say, I'm an atheist... but because the proof of God existence or non-existence can't be proven.. then "I'm agnostically athiest" (a phrase blackking made up, lol) A person could say that, but then that person is at that point no longer an atheist, aka, "I foolishly believe there are no deities." He is instead an agnostic. Which is my point... if I one day wake up like, "damn there is no proof God existence, and it's not logical to see design in the universe or it's complex organisms"- Then at that point I'm agnostic. If I was theist I would believe in deities. I understand the difference between knowledge and belief- I'm not sure that you understand why the wiki pages state, "Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge." Someone can believe they know or they can simply not know. Not knowing makes you agnostic, not some contradictory term.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. You seem to think it's impossible for someone to not know whether or not god exists, and yet believe in it. You're just factually wrong.

I have similar justification that you have for the belief I was responding to. And people have always left religion, not just in the past century. People have also taken on belief systems with a high power.

Well, actually there have been studies done that show that people are becoming less religious than previous generations. Do you deny those exist?

lol, if you chose, we can pretend that the implications aren't based in generalizations and assumptions.

You are agnostic. And you don't have to close your eyes to science to have faith in the obvious.

I know I'm an agnostic. I'm also an atheist, which is what you can't wrap your head around. I've already said a person can hold both positions, and it not contradict.

And if God is so obvious, why do so many people have so many different ideas of what god is? If it's so obvious, why is FAITH required in the first place? Again, I'm not sure if you understand what these things mean.

breh it's 2013. The time of no one knows about atheist. Religion is dominating peoples views and mind. Child and teenagers only get their ideas and philosophies from their parents.... etc etc.. All that sh1t is not the reality of how things are today. For example, the majority of young Christians support gay rights. They aren't getting those ideas from church... they get that because most young people support it and they are young people. Yeah there are people who claim some weird form of agnostic atheism, but in reality , well imo, those people just don't want to look foolish by out right saying that the universe is void of intelligence in it's creation and that complex life came solely from inanimate matter. Since there is no proof to contradict theology, it's just easier to say I don't know.. but still seem like a rational atheist.

And? My point was that there ARE people who think gays are inherently evil, and trying to war with god. It's not from any personal experience with them, but what they've been told. Same goes for atheists.

It's not about being foolish, it's about being intellectually honest. The evidence points towards the universe coming about through completely natural means, and the overwhelming majority of people who study this, don't subscribe to any of the major religions. Now, that in and of itself does not disprove a creator -- but it doesn't help it's case.

A fool is someone who would go in the face of science, and say for certain that the only way our universe could exist is if something supernatural made it, therefore Allah/Krishna/Yahweh/Jehova/Thor/Zeus. Even if you could convince me that is the only way, you still can't prove that god is the one from your particular religion.

My position as an agnostic atheist is I don't know how the universe came to be or if this creator exists, but I haven't been convinced that one does exist.

You can say it's irrelevant that there are scientist that believe in God, that religious people have developed the core of what scientific theory is built on, and that technological advances that help all humans are created at times by religious people-- yea you call irrelevance until the assumption and statements are made that religious people hate and/or don't understand science. The atheist who speaks like that, makes it relevant by demonstrating their ignorance.

Okay, and? I mean... let's be reality here. If we want to talk about which group is most likely to have members ignorant of science, I'd think theism wins be a long shot. People tend to become atheists because they realize their religion isn't substantiated, and science is the best method we have to finding truth in an unbiased way. Sure, there are plenty of theists who are key to developing certain technological advances. But what difference does that make? Not all religious people are dumb. Happy?

Fastgrowing Islam winning converts in Western world - CNN

I was really hoping for some statistics, not just some article written 15 years ago.

Also, there are people like me, born of a atheist and a non practicing Christian that converted and practices Islam. Islam has a good way of presenting itself to open people.

Righttttttt....

There are intelligent and logical people that aren't scientist. lol, atheist regurgitate simple popular theories to seem smart, and quote that over 80 percent of scientist don't believe in God or are agnostic. well, Over 30 percent of scientist and over 80 percent of other people believe in some sort of higher power. By your logic, you would think that all the people in advance technological career fields would be atheist, or that the majority of nurses and other people in medical career fields would be atheist or that all the logical people on the planet would at the very least be agnostic. But this is not the case.

You're missing the point of that statistic. It's not just smart people don't believe and dumb people believe... that's not what I'm trying to say ... it's not that simple. The point is the people most educated on these SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, (the origins of the universe, biology, etc) tend to reject your notion that the only way the universe could exist is if a god made it. And it hasn't always been that way ... you've already brought up how most people who developed the ideas of big bang cosmology already held beliefs in a god. It seems that as scientists have discovered more about it, they've given up theistic beliefs over time. My question is why do you think that is if the necessity of a supernatural creator is sooo obvious? Why don't the people who are in this field don't reach the same conclusion as you as a layman? Which is more likely: some atheistic conspiracy, or your assumptions are unfounded?

You say atheism is basically new. Well Human beings are basically new. Regardless there have been atheist since the 16th century, and some rare cases in ancient times. We don't know that the future holds, but you can't assume that more people will become non believers. I say that there will be more agnostics. As far as atheism... it will be like homosexuality, become louder and slightly increase, but not become the norm.

No, sorry, I was not trying to say atheism is basically new, though I can see how you thought I was saying that. (Disbelief has been around as long as people that have been making claims about the supernatural.) What I was trying to say is that the Big Bang and Evolution are relatively new concepts in human history. And when technology improves and there is more ... evident evidence for them, more people will realize theism is not necessarily the answer to the origins of the universe, and leave religion.

And maybe you're right, maybe there are questions that are unknowable, and religion plays a part in solving that problem. Maybe we'll never solve the question of life after death, and so religion will continue to stay. I don't know. Hopefully, most people will see reason, and accept that these beliefs aren't necessarily true.

 

[the cac mamba]

Thanks, friend.

PLEASE DON'T ACCEPT CHRIST AS YOUR SAVIOR. ALL BLESSINGS AND PROTECTION ARE FROM THE CREATOR.

its funny because one of you is right and one isnt

 

[Blackking]

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. You seem to think it's impossible for someone to not know whether or not god exists, and yet believe in it. You're just factually wrong.

breh, I understood what you were saying from the first post, and I guess we will have to disagree because you are just factually wrong. Read your middle sentence 3 times in a row and you will see how it sounds. An agnostic doesn't just believe that God cannot be proven, but also is saying that human knowledge and capabilities are limited in that area. A atheist says that God doesn't exist- and most atheist can't prove that God exist or even care to prove the non existence. Proving that God doesn't exist isn't a requirement of Atheism. So to create and coin contradictory terms such as Agnostic Atheist is wrong, because to create the term makes the other two obsolete. All rational Atheist and Theist can say that there is now way to prove 100% God, with out a doubt. So anyway, I came across this a while ago.. sh1t's just foolish. Atheist, Gnostic, Theist, Agnostic

Well, actually there have been studies done that show that people are becoming less religious than previous generations. Do you deny those exist?

I used to not be religious, i guess I was in the majority? I always say people are less religious, that is not saying atheism is on the rise; there's a difference. And is the connection to the increase, a better understanding of our universe.... naw, I mean the majority of people don't inquire, study, or have time to think in depth about these subjects. There is hardly any religious pressure in Western nations, so the 1% can go to its plateau of around 8% atheist. If more scientific inquiry isn't the reason for the increase then what's your point? And if you can be atheist these days with no problems and live a normal life, wheres the sharp jump in non-believers in God.... why does most of the loss in religiosity go to people who are simply not down with organized religion?

I know I'm an agnostic. I'm also an atheist, which is what you can't wrap your head around. I've already said a person can hold both positions, and it not contradict.

You're just agnostic, it's cool that u want to attack religious people and side with the usually logical and intelligent atheist so that u won't look foolish, but you're an agnostic agnostic.

And if God is so obvious, why do so many people have so many different ideas of what god is? If it's so obvious, why is FAITH required in the first place? Again, I'm not sure if you understand what these things mean.

The Faith isn't in God's existence; being that our creation, etc are the obvious part. It takes faith to believe that if you life a righteous life and worship God that you will be rewarded with a good life and rewarded with whatever else comes after u die. There are different ideas about God because we are humans, humans have received different insights about God; supposedly. And no, I do not know what the words Obvious and Faith mean.

And? My point was that there ARE people who think gays are inherently evil, and trying to war with god. It's not from any personal experience with them, but what they've been told. Same goes for atheists.

There are people who have been told to never date a black person. There is enough flow of information in the world for people to become their own person by age 15.

It's not about being foolish, it's about being intellectually honest. The evidence points towards the universe coming about through completely natural means, and the overwhelming majority of people who study this, don't subscribe to any of the major religions. Now, that in and of itself does not disprove a creator -- but it doesn't help it's case.

well if there is a creator, then a case isn't needed.... but ur correct that 'fact' doesn't disprove a creator. Intelligent design cannot be tested or verified so it is not science and can't be falsified. Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. I guess we know for sure that the Theory of the Big bang is True .. so true that it negates anything related to intelligent design... We know this because it's science, we have observed this and we have experiments. Every other month a theory about the universe is changed or debunked. Not just any 'facts' but facts that were once in peer reviewed articles and facts that you would be considered a fool for not BelievinG in.
I guess you can say, that Gravity cannot be absolutely proven either, but sh1t at least we can drop an apple repeatably to see that it exist. Two questions from this are - what are we going to do when the Big bang is proven incomplete or wrong?? Also, when are we going to see that the big bang doesn't disprove any idea about intelligence in the universe. There are people who can make equal explanations about the universe that involve intelligent causes combined with natural causes.

A fool is someone who would go in the face of science, and say for certain that the only way our universe could exist is if something supernatural made it, therefore Allah/Krishna/Yahweh/Jehova/Thor/Zeus. Even if you could convince me that is the only way, you still can't prove that god is the one from your particular religion.

You're right, only a fool says for certain. Damn, that's bad news for the atheist on this board.

My position as an agnostic atheist is I don't know how the universe came to be or if this creator exists, but I haven't been convinced that one does exist.

ok

Okay, and? I mean... let's be reality here. If we want to talk about which group is most likely to have members ignorant of science, I'd think theism wins be a long shot. People tend to become atheists because they realize their religion isn't substantiated, and science is the best method we have to finding truth in an unbiased way. Sure, there are plenty of theists who are key to developing certain technological advances. But what difference does that make? Not all religious people are dumb. Happy?

yea.

I was really hoping for some statistics, not just some article written 15 years ago.
Islam in North America since 1989 increased 25%

Islam in Africa since 1989 increased 2.15%

Islam in Asia since 1989 increased 12.57%

Islam in Europe since 1989 increased 142.35%

Islam in Latin America since 1989 decreased -4.73%

and Islam in Australia and Oceania / Pacific since 1989 increased 257.01%

You're missing the point of that statistic. It's not just smart people don't believe and dumb people believe... that's not what I'm trying to say ... it's not that simple. The point is the people most educated on these SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, (the origins of the universe, biology, etc) tend to reject your notion that the only way the universe could exist is if a god made it. And it hasn't always been that way ... you've already brought up how most people who developed the ideas of big bang cosmology already held beliefs in a god. It seems that as scientists have discovered more about it, they've given up theistic beliefs over time. My question is why do you think that is if the necessity of a supernatural creator is sooo obvious? Why don't the people who are in this field don't reach the same conclusion as you as a layman? Which is more likely: some atheistic conspiracy, or your assumptions are unfounded?

My assumptions are unfounded in the box of narrowminded thinking, yes. And I've taken biology classes at large universities. I can see why biologist would be atheist. I can also see why the vast majority of mathematicians are religious, or at the very least believe in god. One of those groups comes up with loose theories that are only made to increase grant research, so that they can turn around and change the theory only to champion the scientific method...... The other group is never wrong about sh1t and are usually the most logical people we come across.

No, sorry, I was not trying to say atheism is basically new, though I can see how you thought I was saying that. (Disbelief has been around as long as people that have been making claims about the supernatural.) What I was trying to say is that the Big Bang and Evolution are relatively new concepts in human history. And when technology improves and there is more ... evident evidence for them, more people will realize theism is not necessarily the answer to the origins of the universe, and leave religion.

ok

And maybe you're right, maybe there are questions that are unknowable, and religion plays a part in solving that problem. Maybe we'll never solve the question of life after death, and so religion will continue to stay. I don't know. Hopefully, most people will see reason, and accept that these beliefs aren't necessarily true.

The only thing we know for sure is that we will know the truth one day.

 

[Mr. Pink]

God been dead since Nietzsche came through and crushed the buildings.

 

[Blackout]

For those who bring up science:

Science is agnostic. So if you want to be a true follower of science then you would become fully agnostic. Not agnostic theist not agnostic atheist but full on agnostic.

As for the God discussion:

What happened before the Big Bang? *insert god here*

One religion goes down and a new one will take its place. Religion can adapt as long as we don't know something.

@NoMayo15

Correction he didn't understand my post and what I was trying to say. Good to know that I pissed you off enough for you to neg me cuz I personally love pissing off extremist atheists.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

its funny because one of you is right and one isnt

At least you believe in God. We makin progress with you friend.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

 

[Mr. Somebody]

God been dead since Nietzsche came through and crushed the buildings.

Nietzsche has been dead since he died talking to himself like a raving lunatic in an insane asylum with syphllis. Looks like God crushed his bu!ld!ng$ as a response to his diss record.

Its so demonic, friend.

 

[NoMayo15]

For those who bring up science:

Science is agnostic. So if you want to be a true follower of science then you would become fully agnostic. Not agnostic theist not agnostic atheist but full on agnostic.

As for the God discussion:

What happened before the Big Bang? *insert god here*

One religion goes down and a new one will take its place. Religion can adapt as long as we don't know something.

@NoMayo15

Correction he didn't understand my post and what I was trying to say. Good to know that I pissed you off enough for you to neg me cuz I personally love pissing off extremist atheists.

You're right, I don't understand your posts, they don't make sense. What does it mean to be "fully agnostic" for example? I suspect you, like Blackking, are mistaken with the definition of atheism. Not all atheists are "strong atheists". But please explain before I continue further.

 

[Blackout]

You're right, I don't understand your posts, they don't make sense. What does it mean to be "fully agnostic" for example? I suspect you, like Blackking, are mistaken with the definition of atheism. Not all atheists are "strong atheists". But please explain before I continue further.

Simply put agnostic is a person who doesnt know if god exists or not and have no input on the matter. They don't reject the belief (atheist) and don't accept it (theist) as well. They are simply neutral to the issue of gods existence.

 

[NoMayo15]

breh, I understood what you were saying from the first post, and I guess we will have to disagree because you are just factually wrong. Read your middle sentence 3 times in a row and you will see how it sounds. An agnostic doesn't just believe that God cannot be proven, but also is saying that human knowledge and capabilities are limited in that area. A atheist says that God doesn't exist- and most atheist can't prove that God exist or even care to prove the non existence. Proving that God doesn't exist isn't a requirement of Atheism. So to create and coin contradictory terms such as Agnostic Atheist is wrong, because to create the term makes the other two obsolete. All rational Atheist and Theist can say that there is now way to prove 100% God, with out a doubt. So anyway, I came across this a while ago.. sh1t's just foolish. Atheist, Gnostic, Theist, Agnostic

No, you're wrong. You do realize there are different definitions for words, right? Not all atheists hold the position that God doesn't exist. Most would say there is no evidence to prove the existence of a god, so they do not believe in one. That's very different than the absolute position of no gods exist. There are both strong and weak atheists, but for you to strawman all atheists as strong so they seem as foolish as you is just weak sauce. Agnostic atheism is a real thing, but you plug your ears and say "la la la, can't hear you, la la la" and pretend it isn't. It doesn't matter if the wikipage is one word our a billion gigs. The definition and history behind the term is clear. Okay, and you found another random source that agrees with me. What makes it foolish? Do you deny that there are people that claim to know 100%, without any doubts that God exists?

Listen, I use to think the same thing. When I was deconverting, I claimed agnosticism because I thought atheists were as fundamental and positive about their disbelief as theists. But after reading and researching I found out that I was wrong... agnosticism and atheism answer two different questions. And atheism is the default position because disbelief is the default for any claim. When someone's accused of a crime, the jury doesn't assume they did it. They are suppose to assume they're not guilty until it's proven otherwise. And the burden of proof is on the prosecution making the claim that so-and-so did the crime.

Atheism is the same thing. Believers say god exists, and atheists say "I don't believe you.... sure it's possible, but since I don't really see evidence that could convince me, I'm not going to believe until then." It's not the exact opposite claim of a strong theist who believes 100% that they know god exists. Stop putting your head in the sand.

I used to not be religious, i guess I was in the majority? I always say people are less religious, that is not saying atheism is on the rise; there's a difference. And is the connection to the increase, a better understanding of our universe.... naw, I mean the majority of people don't inquire, study, or have time to think in depth about these subjects. There is hardly any religious pressure in Western nations, so the 1% can go to its plateau of around 8% atheist. If more scientific inquiry isn't the reason for the increase then what's your point? And if you can be atheist these days with no problems and live a normal life, wheres the sharp jump in non-believers in God.... why does most of the loss in religiosity go to people who are simply not down with organized religion?

Well, considering you're probably in your 20's or 30's in the US, then no, you weren't in the majority. You're in the majority now as a theist. There are mostly non-theistic countries though.

Well, I can't say for certain why anyone has left their religion. But I do suspect that most people do it, as @7Revo said, to god the gaps. As long as there are gaps in our knowledge, especially concerning our origins and afterlife, then there are people who will use god to explain it. And as we learn more, those gaps will be replaced with the actual answers, and some people will give up that belief.

I think more people aren't deconverting because these theories aren't self-evident like say gravity is, and it conflicts with a persons fundamental beliefs. If you're taught something by people you trust, and society, for the most part also agree that it's the truth ... it's going to be very hard for you to give up those beliefs .... even if you understand the scientific process. Religion is there to give people answers and hope.... some people still need that hope. The thought of not existing anymore is scary to a lot of people.

You're just agnostic, it's cool that u want to attack religious people and side with the usually logical and intelligent atheist so that u won't look foolish, but you're an agnostic agnostic.

You are a true idiot.

The Faith isn't in God's existence; being that our creation, etc are the obvious part. It takes faith to believe that if you life a righteous life and worship God that you will be rewarded with a good life and rewarded with whatever else comes after u die. There are different ideas about God because we are humans, humans have received different insights about God; supposedly. And no, I do not know what the words Obvious and Faith mean.

Our existence is evidence that we exist.... which, if I recall, you questioned a few posts back, or in that other thread. It takes faith to assume god is the reason for our existence. To deny that is being blatantly disingenuous. That's my point ... if there is one true god, and it's obvious, then there shouldn't be different "insights". There shouldn't be some people who think there are multiple gods, and some that think he requires this set of moral codes, and others that think he has multiple forms, and think he lived on Earth at one point.......... Either this being ISN'T so obvious, or it doesn't really exist at all, and people make shyt up.

There are people who have been told to never date a black person. There is enough flow of information in the world for people to become their own person by age 15.

Yeahhh... for some people. And for others they never get outside their little bubble in where ever they live. It goes both ways.

well if there is a creator, then a case isn't needed....

Exactly. If God was obvious, like you said, then there wouldn't need to be debates on this. Maybe .... just maybe ... it's not real. Just puttin that thought out there.

but ur correct that 'fact' doesn't disprove a creator. Intelligent design cannot be tested or verified so it is not science and can't be falsified. Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. I guess we know for sure that the Theory of the Big bang is True .. so true that it negates anything related to intelligent design... We know this because it's science, we have observed this and we have experiments. Every other month a theory about the universe is changed or debunked. Not just any 'facts' but facts that were once in peer reviewed articles and facts that you would be considered a fool for not Believing in.

Okay, here's a challenge. Present me with one scientific theory (read, not hypothesis, but a hypothesis that reached the title of theory) regarding the origins of the universe that was recently debunked.

I guess you can say, that Gravity cannot be absolutely proven either, but sh1t at least we can drop an apple repeatably to see that it exist. Two questions from this are - what are we going to do when the Big bang is proven incomplete or wrong?? Also, when are we going to see that the big bang doesn't disprove any idea about intelligence in the universe. There are people who can make equal explanations about the universe that involve intelligent causes combined with natural causes.

Your assumption that Big Bang will be proven wrong is hilarious. It is incomplete, that's for sure. But Gravity is also incomplete ... that doesn't mean how us laymen understand Gravity is completely wrong. Just because we don't know everything about these things doesn't mean somehow magically we'll discover God. When we find out more, we'll realize that we don't need to god the gaps anymore. This is what's been going on since the scientific process has been implemented.

You're right, only a fool says for certain. Damn, that's bad news for the atheist on this board.

Good thing few atheists say this.

Islam in North America since 1989 increased 25%

And what is this relative to everything else? If I remember correctly, Islam is a little less than 1% of the US pop so.... we're talkin about what, a million or so in the past 20 years? I mean, this information doesn't tell me anything, what can I infer from this??? You said the population is growing, and not from immigration, from conversions. How do I know that if this is all you give me. From what I understand, the Muslim population has grown tremendously in Europe largely due to immigration. Prove otherwise.

My assumptions are unfounded in the box of narrowminded thinking, yes. And I've taken biology classes at large universities. I can see why biologist would be atheist. I can also see why the vast majority of mathematicians are religious, or at the very least believe in god. One of those groups comes up with loose theories that are only made to increase grant research, so that they can turn around and change the theory only to champion the scientific method...... The other group is never wrong about sh1t and are usually the most logical people we come across.

Way to dodge those questions. And way to bring up some antedotes about the few math people you know who apparently are ....never wrong??? Mathematicians are never wrong about anything? And they usually believe in God, so it makes sense to believe in God. Okay yeah, makes sense. What utter bullshyt.

The only thing we know for sure is that we will know the truth one day.

Well no, we don't even fukking know this, because if there is no afterlife, after you die, you are no longer conscious, so you can't know anything.

 

[NoMayo15]

Simply put agnostic is a person who doesnt know if god exists or not and have no input on the matter. They don't reject the belief (atheist) and don't accept it (theist) as well. They are simply neutral to the issue of gods existence.

Not all agnostics are like that. Having no opinion on the matter isn't a requirement for agnosticism.

 

[Blackking]

No, you're wrong. You do realize there are different definitions for words, right? Not all atheists hold the position that God doesn't exist. Most would say there is no evidence to prove the existence of a god, so they do not believe in one. That's very different than the absolute position of no gods exist. There are both strong and weak atheists, but for you to strawman all atheists as strong so they seem as foolish as you is just weak sauce. Agnostic atheism is a real thing, but you plug your ears and say "la la la, can't hear you, la la la" and pretend it isn't. It doesn't matter if the wikipage is one word our a billion gigs. The definition and history behind the term is clear. Okay, and you found another random source that agrees with me. What makes it foolish? Do you deny that there are people that claim to know 100%, without any doubts that God exists?

Listen, I use to think the same thing. When I was deconverting, I claimed agnosticism because I thought atheists were as fundamental and positive about their disbelief as theists. But after reading and researching I found out that I was wrong... agnosticism and atheism answer two different questions. And atheism is the default position because disbelief is the default for any claim. When someone's accused of a crime, the jury doesn't assume they did it. They are suppose to assume they're not guilty until it's proven otherwise. And the burden of proof is on the prosecution making the claim that so-and-so did the crime.

Atheism is the same thing. Believers say god exists, and atheists say "I don't believe you.... sure it's possible, but since I don't really see evidence that could convince me, I'm not going to believe until then." It's not the exact opposite claim of a strong theist who believes 100% that they know god exists. Stop putting your head in the sand.

Well, considering you're probably in your 20's or 30's in the US, then no, you weren't in the majority. You're in the majority now as a theist. There are mostly non-theistic countries though.

Well, I can't say for certain why anyone has left their religion. But I do suspect that most people do it, as @7Revo said, to god the gaps. As long as there are gaps in our knowledge, especially concerning our origins and afterlife, then there are people who will use god to explain it. And as we learn more, those gaps will be replaced with the actual answers, and some people will give up that belief.

I think more people aren't deconverting because these theories aren't self-evident like say gravity is, and it conflicts with a persons fundamental beliefs. If you're taught something by people you trust, and society, for the most part also agree that it's the truth ... it's going to be very hard for you to give up those beliefs .... even if you understand the scientific process. Religion is there to give people answers and hope.... some people still need that hope. The thought of not existing anymore is scary to a lot of people.

You are a true idiot.

Our existence is evidence that we exist.... which, if I recall, you questioned a few posts back, or in that other thread. It takes faith to assume god is the reason for our existence. To deny that is being blatantly disingenuous. That's my point ... if there is one true god, and it's obvious, then there shouldn't be different "insights". There shouldn't be some people who think there are multiple gods, and some that think he requires this set of moral codes, and others that think he has multiple forms, and think he lived on Earth at one point.......... Either this being ISN'T so obvious, or it doesn't really exist at all, and people make shyt up.

Yeahhh... for some people. And for others they never get outside their little bubble in where ever they live. It goes both ways.

Exactly. If God was obvious, like you said, then there wouldn't need to be debates on this. Maybe .... just maybe ... it's not real. Just puttin that thought out there.

Okay, here's a challenge. Present me with one scientific theory (read, not hypothesis, but a hypothesis that reached the title of theory) regarding the origins of the universe that was recently debunked.



Your assumption that Big Bang will be proven wrong is hilarious. It is incomplete, that's for sure. But Gravity is also incomplete ... that doesn't mean how us laymen understand Gravity is completely wrong. Just because we don't know everything about these things doesn't mean somehow magically we'll discover God. When we find out more, we'll realize that we don't need to god the gaps anymore. This is what's been going on since the scientific process has been implemented.

Good thing few atheists say this.

And what is this relative to everything else? If I remember correctly, Islam is a little less than 1% of the US pop so.... we're talkin about what, a million or so in the past 20 years? I mean, this information doesn't tell me anything, what can I infer from this??? You said the population is growing, and not from immigration, from conversions. How do I know that if this is all you give me. From what I understand, the Muslim population has grown tremendously in Europe largely due to immigration. Prove otherwise.

Way to dodge those questions. And way to bring up some antedotes about the few math people you know who apparently are ....never wrong??? Mathematicians are never wrong about anything? And they usually believe in God, so it makes sense to believe in God. Okay yeah, makes sense. What utter bullshyt.

Well no, we don't even fukking know this, because if there is no afterlife, after you die, you are no longer conscious, so you can't know anything.

So you aren't mature enough to handle someone disagreeing with you.

Anyway, I already said that I know about the oxymoronic phrases that you champion. The is a reason most dictionaries have the words, Theist, atheist, and agnostic... but none of the random phrases you've chosen to use. It's simple to understand what you mean and why you use those words.. But the history of those words, the fact that you use them, and the fact that there are doubts amongst believers and non believers- doesn't mean that the phrases are legitimate. Atheist:A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. You can figure out the rest..... unless you are 'Clearly confused' , lol.

Believing in God is considered illogical in some circles and theist are either assumed to not know anything about science or are irrational people. This is the only reason I brought up large groups of logic people that believe in a creator. Also, if there are a group of people who research mainly to encourage funds and develop theories, hypothesis, and more questions, only to possibly later have that idea challenged and possible debunked.... Then There are people who are considered very logic, who develop products, software, results, mathematical concepts, etc... and are never debunked. I just find it interesting that the second group would be the people who are known to believe in God and the ones who usually play follow the leader are considered to be the ones who know for sure that a God couldn't possibly exist.

You said provide stats, I did that. I mention mathematicians, you ignore the point and said something weak about some people 'I' know?? You said show religion is growing in the West , I did. Also, just so u know, you can't make a point about God's non-existence based on the fact that human beings have different ideas about God; that is flawed thinking that could be wrongly applied to most concepts. You say if God is obvious then there would be no need for Debate; also flawed - Global warming is obvious to many people, but there is still a debate. We live in a world with extreme flow of info and minimal religious pressure in advanced nations- you say it goes both ways about people accepting ideas opposite of their parents; this is true, but I believe it's telling that there isn't more than a tiny increase in the non belief in God.

You're the type of individual that argues for the non-functionality of junk DNA if the scientific community give you the order to follow. I'm the type to question it, because it seem illogical that over 90% of our genome is useless. The hidden messages, undiscovered purposes, and embedded signals in most of DNA would make some people nervous. Darwkins said that the true 'purpose' of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. Darwin says that life has no purpose and we are here to simply survival. He was considered great for making the case that everything that seems designed is an illusion. Humans aren't forced into believing in a creator, overall. People didn't only develop religion to deal with the world's questions. Children naturally believe in things due to human nature not due to forced beliefs. How do we determine if one idea is more reasonable than the next when neither is proven? I say the side that isn't calling the other side "idiots" is the more reasonable in that scenario. Do you know what promiscuous teleology is?

Humans may be primed to believe in creation - life - 02 March 2009 - New Scientist