Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Nuclear Wessel

What is your reason for belief/non-belief?

228 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

XenoFish
4491650961_22eaa4b2af.jpg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

I'm an agnostic pagan. I don't really see a deity one way or the other going on, but for sure there are powers in nature and the universe that rule our lives and don't give an eff about it, and we should be respectful of it. So I tend to give my nod to Mama N AKA Mother Nature, the nature of everything, the female aspect of everything, the emotion and flow of everything. And Papa U AKA Father Universe, the science that drives everything, the male aspect of everything, the logic and motion of everything. I do also believe that we don't know everything, and there are probably critters out there much more powerful than us, just like we are much more powerful than other critters- and that needs respect too.

The reasoning for believing as I do? Well, that's a bit more complex. I like to think we all have energy, or spirit- kind of akin to how some Asian principals look at it. If this is so, then there has to be some sort of order, because obviously what goes on around us isn't total random chaos. I, like a lot of other humans, like to give some sort of personification to what I cannot possibly understand about the universe as a whole. To make myself more comfortable with the notions, I call it all Mama N and Papa U. They aren't actual gods, but it's a darn sight easier to classify the various principals of the universe this way in my own mind.

So for example, I think we can peeve Mama N off with something say, like a nuke disaster. She gets all unhappy, a lot of stuff dies, and then she goes about healing herself- with the help of Papa U of course. You can't have one without the other. And why did we have that nuke disaster? Because Papa U has rules, and when we don't play by the rules, crap goes to hell in a handbasket.

Or say we decide to go against Mama N's rules and build a big ole city in what amounts to a hole on the edge of the ocean. Sooner or later Mama N is going to bring enough rain with her to drown that city- and she is using Papa U's rules to do it. We don't pay mind to those rules, and the waters overflow our levies, letting the flood waters in.

And then there is the cool magics of Mama N and Papa U. Like why there are rainbows, and how crystals form, and what is that special thing that makes cells divide, and how computers work, and why there are only certain amounts of some elements forever but other elements seem to be able to change. All perfectly logical magic.

But then also I believe that we as humans can have an impact on how our world around us works or not in metaphysical and explainable ways too. This gets into the extra weird crap that I can not explain, but it seems to happen. Why do ghostly things happen, how come some psychic things like meditation seem to work, why does faith work or not, how come love comes to some of us and not others and why do some people feel such hate they must kill. Why does rain make some people sad and others glad.

I also believe because it would be really sad to have belief in nothing at all. I would rather have an ambiguous faith in nebulous somethings than nothing- and I would rather have that kind of faith than any of the organized religions which all got good principals but are rather heinous in their own ways too. At least with the way I believe, I don't harm anyone, try to have a good life and have morals simply because it is right without fear of threats.. and if I'm wrong, than shoot, my corpse won't care.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I don't think the atheist ignores reason to justify their atheistic belief, depending on how one defines atheist. The way you have defined the problem the most salient point isn't the concept of 'deity', it seems more broadly to be the fact that, 'I can't rationally rule out that there are absolutely no examples of concept/category 'X' because 'X' hasn't been fully defined'; we can plug lots of values in for 'X'. Although I'm ultimately agnostic about everything, I can rationally call myself an atheist and not ignore reason and state that I'm a disbeliever in all specific concepts of deities that have been proposed and that I'm aware of so far. That there may be a specific God concept that I'm unaware of that may somehow be irrational for me to deny isn't really that more relevant that there may be some 'dragon' concept that I'm unaware of that actually did or does exist at this point.

I don't think there's anything irrational about not believing in things that have no evidence for them, seems to be the default for lots of other topics and concepts.

Exactly LG, there are arguments for infinite perfection, Decartes comes to mind, so does Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine.

These are arguments for the existence of God as defined by infinite perfection.

We atheists are more then appropriate to counter that this God does not exist and give our reasons.

It doesn't matter if there is a god or not, the point is that we can conceive of one.

Decartes argument for God hinges on this.

I'll leave the agnostic side for 8ty, he can explain it better then me.

Russell's teapot analogy is a strong criticism for the theist that if they make the claim for a God they have to provide the evidence.

The atheist is appropriate in asking for it, I don't take Leo's position that it is pointless, my Philospohy course taught otherwise. :)

As an atheist, based on the argument put forth such as the problem of evil, or efficient cause, or any new ones ( I am open to listening ) so far I countered I do not see evidence for the existence of God. ( I am not gonna outline my reasons, but will if anyone wants to know).

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

The only thing which I can think of what "just happened" is the IDEA that something just happened to make a man and a women.....this is not the case, life is much more complex than that.

Oh and another thing which JUST did not happen is an apple and a snake JUST happened to turn up in some garden one day.

In an undirected universe everything just happens according to natural laws which apparently just happened, too. Complexity and Jewish myths are non sequitir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel

I require evidence of something in order to accept that it exists. There is no hard evidence that a god exists, or has ever existed in the universe. Therefore, I have no reason to believe a god exists. It's really that simple.

Of course it only makes logical sense to require evidence that something irrefutably exists, absolutely; however, what are your thoughts on the possibility of such a thing existing in this universe? Do you think it's at all possible that there exists some unifying power beyond human understanding? Something that may have a hand in influencing events to happen in some way?

I don't necessarily believe in something having a hand in events that occur in every day life. What if, however, our universe is a "recording" of some other universe that has already come to an end, but we are essentially being played back and everything that has happened in the other universe is destined to happen in this one, no matter what?

It is probably a load of bunk but I think these things are interesting to think about, especially when you take into account the philosophical notion of multiverses.

Edited by nuclearwessel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I don't think the atheist ignores reason to justify their atheistic belief, depending on how one defines atheist. The way you have defined the problem the most salient point isn't the concept of 'deity', it seems more broadly to be the fact that, 'I can't rationally rule out that there are absolutely no examples of concept/category 'X' because 'X' hasn't been fully defined'; we can plug lots of values in for 'X'. Although I'm ultimately agnostic about everything, I can rationally call myself an atheist and not ignore reason and state that I'm a disbeliever in all specific concepts of deities that have been proposed and that I'm aware of so far. That there may be a specific God concept that I'm unaware of that may somehow be irrational for me to deny isn't really that more relevant that there may be some 'dragon' concept that I'm unaware of that actually did or does exist at this point.

I don't think there's anything irrational about not believing in things that have no evidence for them, seems to be the default for lots of other topics and concepts.

I beg to differ, LG.

Regarding the concept of "deity" - define it. Because you can only decide what constitutes evidence for something's existence when that thing is defined (such as unicorns are, elephants are, or bigfoot is), and there are so many, and so many contradictory, definitions of "deity" (or "god", or whatever you want to call it) floating around that it is impossible to determine what would constitute evidence.

So, the concept of deity is critical, central, to my position. I put it to you that no-one actually knows what "deity" is, and so no-one can claim any evidence for the existence of deity does, or does not, exist.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

my reason for believing or not believing , in all cases and topics is ; how does any particular belief system benefit me ?

But I dont seem to place a 'reality emphasis ' on my belief systems , it also seems to me that most other people do ( for some, a very 'defended' viewpoint ) . I use them as a tool, to work with the deep programming my species has picked up over a loooooooong time .

Some people seem to take their personal ( mere ) beliefs 'patriotically' and have them totally confused with 'perceptions of reality' .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I could be consider indifferent agnostic or indifferent atheist. I don't really care about god existence or non-existence. One of the reason is because I suffered from religious psychological abuse as a kid. Basically meaning I was told that I wasn't worth god's love due to being a sinful and evil creature, when as a child hurt me. As I grew I developed a bitterness toward religion and at one point attempted to be christian just to give it a second chance.

However I endured a similar experience as I had when I was a kid. I learned that it's easier to preach it than act on it. Getting booted out of church because I gave the kids at VBS extra snacks (which I bought myself). So it soured me again. This drove me to explore magick more in depth with paradigm shifts and found that all religions were the same, man made. That the gods were the avatars of the ego.

I have no problem with peoples beliefs, I have problems with what they do in the name of their beliefs. I think that shoving a faith down a child's throat is a form of psychological abuse. Because this limits their world view and forces them into compliancy.

I had no idea Ho

It is not abuse to inculcate religious belief. It is abuse however to teach things which harm a child physically or psychologically thus the FORM of teaching you endured WAS harmful.

I wasn't exposed much to religion as a child but what i did encounter was empowering and positive (it was the social doctrine of the new testament about gods redeeming love and how humans should behave to each other)

. When i began studying religions in my twenties I saw the great love and power in the life of christ. (and most of the Christian message) which has the power to strengthen, heal, and protect any human being. It frees us from fear, from materialism, and from the primitive evolved animal "drivers" which exist in all primates, and allows us to love others as we love pursleves. It also gives us good reason to love ourselves( because god loves us as we are.)

However it also explains that our actions and our thoughts ALWAYS have consequences, (something I was taught as a child via secular humanism ) and so we have a personal responsibility for our behaviour, and a duty of care to ourselves, to others, and to our world and all things in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

my reason for believing or not believing , in all cases and topics is ; how does any particular belief system benefit me ?

But I dont seem to place a 'reality emphasis ' on my belief systems , it also seems to me that most other people do ( for some, a very 'defended' viewpoint ) . I use them as a tool, to work with the deep programming my species has picked up over a loooooooong time .

Some people seem to take their personal ( mere ) beliefs 'patriotically' and have them totally confused with 'perceptions of reality' .

Do you also consider how acting on your beliefs benefits or otherwise affects OTHER people? ( I assume you probably do. )

You seem to have a healthy appreciation of your choices and a logical rationale for making them

I would say that beliefs about things which create positive outcomes (or negative ones) ARE transferable if you do allow that you are not just responsible for yourself, but for others That is why some of us try to argue that certain beliefs and behaviours are more constructive for ALL humans and for societies, while others are generally destructive.

What we, as individual humans, believe drives how we act, and how we act affects not just ourselves but all those around us. Thus we also have to check that our beliefs and the actions resulting form those beliefs are benefiting not just us but others as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EEHC
We have and are constantly evolving, so if there had been a god who created us, he did not create what we are today. We evolve over time in accordance to our habitat and environment, we are part of nature, like every other living thing on this planet, although we are top of the food chain, it does not make us indispensable.

Design in nature doesn't precludes change over time, or evolution for that matter. Dinosaurs were conscious lifeforms who arose on Earth same as we did and that's because the laws of nature permit it. We could disappear too but our intelligence might also save us from such a disaster. The Universe has the perfect set of cosmological parameters for carbon-based life to develop and thrive. I believe there is a purpose behind that other than unguided, random processes.

Edited by EEHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I beg to differ, LG.

Regarding the concept of "deity" - define it. Because you can only decide what constitutes evidence for something's existence when that thing is defined (such as unicorns are, elephants are, or bigfoot is), and there are so many, and so many contradictory, definitions of "deity" (or "god", or whatever you want to call it) floating around that it is impossible to determine what would constitute evidence.

So, the concept of deity is critical, central, to my position. I put it to you that no-one actually knows what "deity" is, and so no-one can claim any evidence for the existence of deity does, or does not, exist.

Wrong, Leo, it doesn't matter if we all have the same definition of God. What matters is that we can conceive of the notion "infinite perfection," which is beyond what we are capable of conceiving on our own, since we are not infinitely perfect.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
willowdreams

I do not LIKE having to say I am an agnostic or atheist, because in the end they are the same. If they are shown absolute proof, then they will believe in a deity (but seriously, absolute proof? I seriously doubt such a thing will/can happen).

Anyway, here is me.

I do not believe in any deity. Is it possible there is a deity? i guess so, but I really do not believe so.

I have read the bible, and other so called 'holy' books, and to be blunt, if I have to narrow it down, that is probably WHY i do not believe in a deity.

When I read them in the order they are printed, or even not in order but as 'scriptures here and there', it all is so fantastical stories that they cannot be true.

Sure, some of the cultural aspects all, I mean look at Harry Potter books, they are fantasy, but the foods in them, the language, the descriptions of where Harrys 'muggle' family lives, et et, you can find easily.

I love Harlequin books, make believe romances, but the references to the area of living in, cars, food, clothing... but that does not change the fact that the 'stories' are just that, 'stories'.

I see them as mythology. The bible being true is as likely as Hecules coming down to test his strength against a giant in todays world, or as likely as we are to reach the end of a rainbow to find leprechaun guarding a pot of gold.

(BTW if there is a pot of gold, someone send me a cut of it).

I do believe in science. I love the honesty of it. Science is ever growing as we mature and grow. It doesnt demand we sacrifice our first born son, then when we have the child tied down and going to take a blade to him to kill him, only to have an invisible man tell you to stop... (can you imagine the psychological issues this child must have had as he grew up?)... nor will we have science demanding that we have incest to populate the earth only to have one family be allowed to live as the earth is destroyed because we are not obedient enough, but that is ok.. we will build a huge ship and carry all sorts of critters... umm yea, uh huh, sure. ok.

You get the idea? I read the books. They read like mythological tales. I took them as such.

This i a long winded thing, sorry. Just a 52 yr old woman who never really believed because she 'read' to much.

Edited by willowdreams
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
etc .....

Then we disagree. I am not responsable for you, or anyone else . :no:

Unless its your writing again , and you meant to say " ... you are not just responsible for yourself, but to others . "

Do you understand the difference ?

What I was saying has nothing to do with acting on 'beliefs' . You won't get it, even if I explain it further.

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormalcy
If you are an atheist... is it simply because there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of a god?

That is definitely the underlying factor for me. Reason or logic, both, BEG for evidence, for indication, with correlation and causation. The same reason I don't believe in the orbiting teapot or the invisible dragon in the garage.

Is it because the very notion of a god defies the laws of physics?

Again, sort of. Because it is the ONLY thing that defies the law of physics, so far, in our "macro" world. There are quantum processes and particles that defies this too, but we are studying them and have peer review and these things can be repeatably witnessed or recreated, etc.

Is it because the likelihood of a god existing is equal to that of pixies, faeries, and elves?

This goes with the previous questions to me, and atheism in its most basic sense, is really more agnosticism in some ways, in that atheists will generally be willing to consider actual evidence for a divinity, but thus far, no sufficient evidence is there, so it is more logical to NOT believe in otherworldly planes - this is not the same as believing there IS NO god - only not that there's any reason to believe there is.

Is it because all of the arguments posited in favour of God's existence (the aforementioned philosophical arguments, as an example) don't make sense in their entirety?

Well, this goes without saying, but again, these "arguments" also go with the above questions. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, you can't just assert things with no proof, even with "believer scientists" later saying they've found Noah's Ark and Jesus' birthplace, etc. There has to be real, consister correlation.

When did you discover you were an atheist, if there ever was such a moment of epiphany... or is it something that you just never gave much thought?

It started in conjunction with my consideration OF the paranormal, in fact. As I grew, over the years, to become more and more skeptical of paranormal stuff, even being fascinated and having my own pet interests (PSI, poltergeists, alien abductions), simultaneously, I would always also apply my views of evidence to religious matters, so the two progressed hand in hand. To view paranormal subjects practically and with a scientific angle (though I'm not scientist), all the anecdotal evidence in the world, with no reasonable explanation or compelling evidence, the less likely a thing is, and the more extraordinary criteria it has to meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark56

"To believe in God is impossible not to believe in Him is absurd."

Voltaire

This is sort of where I'm at spiritually. I'm a nominal Catholic that's in denial of being an Agnostic. ( in fact, I think,sometimes, there's a narrow line between the two) I understand this dilemma Voltaire has stated. I think this quote pretty much sums up what being an Agnostic is. I heard a Jewish scholar once say: " God invented God, so we could understand him. " I found that to be very interesting, and ponder on it sometimes. I've read a little about Meister Eckhart ,a Dominican monk, back in the middle ages who started writing about something he called " the God beyond God " which got him in trouble with the Inquisition. His views were way too esoteric/mystical for me. Just flew over my little brain. But yeah , that's where I'm at. As absurd and meaningless as life is and can be; I still feel compelled to always move forward, even if I stumble a lot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

I beg to differ, LG.

Regarding the concept of "deity" - define it. Because you can only decide what constitutes evidence for something's existence when that thing is defined (such as unicorns are, elephants are, or bigfoot is), and there are so many, and so many contradictory, definitions of "deity" (or "god", or whatever you want to call it) floating around that it is impossible to determine what would constitute evidence.

So, the concept of deity is critical, central, to my position. I put it to you that no-one actually knows what "deity" is, and so no-one can claim any evidence for the existence of deity does, or does not, exist.

I absolutely agree. There is no empirical evidence proving the existence of God. There is data that can be construed as evidence but requires a leap-of-faith which is what distinguishes religion from science. If the existence of God could be proven empirically, religion would be science. Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UFO_Monster

Of course it only makes logical sense to require evidence that something irrefutably exists, absolutely; however, what are your thoughts on the possibility of such a thing existing in this universe? Do you think it's at all possible that there exists some unifying power beyond human understanding? Something that may have a hand in influencing events to happen in some way?

I don't necessarily believe in something having a hand in events that occur in every day life. What if, however, our universe is a "recording" of some other universe that has already come to an end, but we are essentially being played back and everything that has happened in the other universe is destined to happen in this one, no matter what?

It is probably a load of bunk but I think these things are interesting to think about, especially when you take into account the philosophical notion of multiverses.

Is there a possibility? I wouldn't know. And there is no reason to assume that these are likely because, again--there is no evidence to support these claims.

I choose to live my life as if these things don't play a factor in my existence, because they apparently don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Wrong, Leo, it doesn't matter if we all have the same definition of God. What matters is that we can conceive of the notion "infinite perfection," which is beyond what we are capable of conceiving on our own, since we are not infinitely perfect.

Oh come on Sheri. Does it not make more sense to dance and juggle on the fence over the existence of Bigfoot, or Unicorns? This way when science proves their existence you can give a smug look to those that needed evidence to believe what were previously myths.

f0eea6f50bbc15e583c7b164cc7d889f.jpg

7218f3cdd9085cf70ca890e377e02de9.jpg

Edited by davros of skaro
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Regarding the concept of "deity" - define it. Because you can only decide what constitutes evidence for something's existence when that thing is defined (such as unicorns are, elephants are, or bigfoot is), and there are so many, and so many contradictory, definitions of "deity" (or "god", or whatever you want to call it) floating around that it is impossible to determine what would constitute evidence.

But I don't need to survey all the definitions of deity that other people may hold, I don't deny definitions of deity that I've never heard of, I may not even agree that they even constitute a deity to me. A deity to me at the very least has to have some superhuman power and be sentient; if people are calling their toaster 'god' good for them, but that doesn't require me to then account for their fringe definition when I say that I don't believe gods exist. Zeus is not wholly undefined.

So, the concept of deity is critical, central, to my position. I put it to you that no-one actually knows what "deity" is, and so no-one can claim any evidence for the existence of deity does, or does not, exist.

I don't really know what 'magic' is either or how it works, nor its bounds if it has any, but I still deny magical creatures. Deities to me are just the most popular subgenre of 'magical or super beings'. I'd agree there's lots of variability in how the term is used, might be able to argue that some kind of worship might be required in addition to the other qualities I noted. But since there are things that I would exclude from being deities, we do then know some things about 'deity'.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

But I don't need to survey all the definitions of deity that other people may hold, I don't deny definitions of deity that I've never heard of, I may not even agree that they even constitute a deity to me. A deity to me at the very least has to have some superhuman power and be sentient; if people are calling their toaster 'god' good for them, but that doesn't require me to then account for their fringe definition when I say that I don't believe gods exist. Zeus is not wholly undefined.

I don't really know what 'magic' is either or how it works, nor its bounds if it has any, but I still deny magical creatures. Deities to me are just the most popular subgenre of 'magical or super beings'. I'd agree there's lots of variability in how the term is used, might be able to argue that some kind of worship might be required in addition to the other qualities I noted. But since there are things that I would exclude from being deities, we do then know some things about 'deity'.

Say what?

You do not want to make a Mountain out of a Molehill?

That's not very logical of you.

tumblr_llt585hAyX1qkx0x3o1_500.gif

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Oh come on Sheri. Does it not make more sense to dance and juggle on the fence over the existence of Bigfoot, or Unicorns? This way when science proves their existence you can give a smug look to those that needed evidence to believe what were previously myths.

f0eea6f50bbc15e583c7b164cc7d889f.jpg

7218f3cdd9085cf70ca890e377e02de9.jpg

Exactly,

Sheesh, having the "right" or a definition of God is immaterial, we only need to be able to conceive of a perfect being (as imperfect beings) to be able to offer a counter.

For me, Athiesm holds, put forth the argument whether it's efficient cause, or the problem of evil, or Descartes a priori God, or paley's watchmaker and I can counter with my reasons, it's not pointless or not allowed until we get a definition on lock.

God is defined as infinite perfection if one can understand that we got a premise.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I do not believe in a god. There has been too much bloodshed through out history for me believe there is a god out there who could possible make a creature which would kill his fellow man.

I hear people say but there is a lot which religion has achieved....and I ask myself what? nothing more than any good man without a religion could.

Religion does not make a man good IMO.

I believe in hope, and hope mankind will one day over come his lust for greed and power and will stop killing in the name of his religion, but I also know as long as there are people who follow a religion which differs from his fellow man, hope is a big ask.

I could never follow an ideology created by man which uses his invented god as an excuse to kill. The 3 main religions have all had their share and some are still today, of shedding blood..............believe in them and the history they carry behind them? I think not!

There is absolutely no proof there is any kind of god, but there is absolute evidence than man wants to be the most powerful thing on this planet...universe is given the chance, and he will play god and do whatever he can to get there and the little people will follow.

Yes there are good people who help others, but you do not need a religion to do this, I believe the strongest man is the man who does not need to follow a religion and does not need to follow what is written in a novel. A strong man is the man who follows his heart and instincts and cares for all living things on this planet.

I do not believe there will ever be proof of a god, to me man has invented "his "god/s, which is fine if it helps him live his time here, but hypothetically there could only be one god and we would all believe together, but we do not = there is your proof, like cultures and customs, it is man made.

I can understand your thinking here but I can't reconcile creation being a random, non-ordered event. The fact that we do not understand everything about the Creator does not prove he doesn't exist. There are MANY things I don't understand and that does not mean they aren't real.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

davros

Oh hell, do we really have to do the fence thing again?

LG

I don't think there's anything irrational about not believing in things that have no evidence for them, seems to be the default for lots of other topics and concepts.

"Default" is a tricky concept. If you just mean "usual thing," then I think lacking evidence, people usually try to judge credibility based on their estimate of a priori plausibility - or sometimes they make a privileged knowledge claim (revelation by God, for example).

A priori includes heuristics, like "god of the gaps" (the more you know about what God does, the less God seems to have done), or Kirk's Complaint (why does God need a space ship? - or a Mohammed, a Moses, ...), or Sagan's summary of Hume (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).

So, your "Do not believe in things that have no evidence for them" is one heuristic among many possibilities, and heuristics are one kind of prioristic analysis among many. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and the question in this thread is the basis of your personal belief.

In other news, I am not going to tilt with Leo over the importance of definitions, but accepting a definition is always a matter of usefulness, not truth. The only admissible truth-objection to a definition is contradiction, a situation which is simultaneously false and useless.

So, when you say that "god" is well-enough defined to make a judgment, then that's it. There may be more useful and less useful definitions, but there is no "true" definition, to the effect that any other self-consistent definition is "false." A definition is satisfactory or agreed upon or standard - all aspects of utility, not of "truth."

I also agree with you that "god" is well-enough defined to begin deliberations. Whatever conclusion is going to be provisional anyway. Otherwise, I wouldn't be an agnostic as I use the term. Atheists, theists and agnostics, in my view, share the attribute of understanding, to their own satisfaction, what the Question of God is asking.

If not, I cannot imagine that it's at all useful to learn that they don't say yes and they don't say no. That they don't understand the question is a satisfactory reply. Even if it is unresponsive, it is satisfactory. The alternative would seem to be admitting infants, dogs and Ming vases into the fold of agnostics. None of them understand the question, either.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

davros

Oh hell, do we really have to do the fence thing again?

How's the view?

Fence-Sitter.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Exactly,

Sheesh, having the "right" or a definition of God is immaterial, we only need to be able to conceive of a perfect being (as imperfect beings) to be able to offer a counter.

For me, Athiesm holds, put forth the argument whether it's efficient cause, or the problem of evil, or Descartes a priori God, or paley's watchmaker and I can counter with my reasons, it's not pointless or not allowed until we get a definition on lock.

God is defined as infinite perfection if one can understand that we got a premise.

I do not know enough about the universe to rule out a Poptart Kitten with Rainbow thrust flying about the galaxies.

It's safe to say that I do not believe nor disbelieve in such an entity.

giphy.gif

Agnosticism: It's super duper smarts cool.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.