Atheist vs Agnostic

quote:

---

If you feel comfortable in the stance "Bigfoot does not exist", then why not "God does not exist"?

---

There is no evidence that Bigfoot exists, but it is not 100% impossible that he doesn't.Just because there is no evidence for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or cannot exist.It just means that we can't make a judgement either way.We don't know, and must always remain open to positive evidence.That which we don't have positive evidence for, we just don't pay any attention to.

quote:

---

Premise: God does not exist
Observation: I believe that I experienced God but can produce no proof. Many others that I have talked with have had similar encounters.
Conclusion: God may exist.
Objection: The lack of evidence does not mean something did not happen or is not possible or does not exist.All have not experienced the same thing.Still, without proof, it is a matter of belief.

​

Premise: Pink Elephants may exist.
Observation: I have never experienced pink elephants nor has anyone whom I have ever talked to. Perhaps isolated mental patients could claim such an encounter.
Conclusion: Pink Elephants still may exist, but there is much less human testimony in favor of them than with God.
Objection: Without any proof, it is all a matter of belief.

​

Premise: Religion is a fairy tale.
Observation: Religion has caused much turmoil and much passionate extremist beliefs within humanity.
Conclusion: The beliefs within religion are more than mere fairy tales. Much is invested in these personal beliefs.
Objection:Why can't everyone just be rational and reject that poison?!
Counter Objection: Why can't everyone just accept God?

---

Phatboy, you do realize that just because you use the words "premise" and "conclusion" doesn't mean you are actually following the rules of formal logic, don't you?You have not used ANY logic here at all.For example, your first argument shakes out as:"Not X.""Y"."Therefore, X or not X".Translation:"There is no God.I have experiences.Therefore God may or may not exist."This is not a logical construction at all. It is just rambling.All you seem to be saying is that more people claim to have experienced God than claim to have experienced Pink Elephants.

quote:

---

Surely personal testimonies/recollections count for something.

---

They count for very little WRT persuasive evidence.

quote:

---

I know that here as in another thread eyewitness testimony has been downplayed but if you were in a hit and run and you had 100 people who all described the car that hit you, would that not count for something?

---

The thing is, when that kind of situation is tested under controlled experimental conditions, you don't ever get 100 identical descriptions. You get a lot of variation, actually.

quote:

---

Surely more than one guy who swore that a pink elephant bashed your car in and vanished in thin air!!
Likewise I not only have my testimony but the testimony of thousands who will swear to a lifechanging experience and will describe God in much the same way. Not because they have been taught or indoctorinated but because they share the passion of the encounter. It is a personal thing.

---

Of course they have been taught and/or indoctrinated.Otherwise, there would be no regionality at all to religions.If all of the hundreds of world religions were pretty equally distributed around the world, and people in the middle of the Amazon jungle reported waking up one day and declaring themselves followers of the Shinto religion, for example, it would be one thing. It's clear that people generally follow the faith of their culture and of their parents.

quote:

---

Furthermore, if 500 people testified that a pink elephant bashed your car in and then vanished in thin air, would not your impassive scientific mind give the evidence more consideration?

---

I would definitely consider it, but I would look for physical evidence.

quote:

---

Why is it human nature to always explain away things that make us uncomfortable?

---

I would think it would be the coolest thing in the world if there were pink elephants around, or God/gods for that matter.No discomfort at all.

quote:

---

So how do your beliefs and my beliefs differ?

---

Two main ways, I think:1) I doubt the existance of that for which I have no objective, reliable, physical evidence for. By contrast, you have totally embraced an evidenceless belief and hold no doubt at all.2) I have a great respect for and a descent understanding of the ways humans are easily fooled and self-deceived. I know that we are, at our cores, creatures of convenience and comfort. Rationality and logic are not natural for us; they are hard and have to be taught. The tendency for making snap judgements before we have all information, and making group alliances and close bonding that comes from religious thought both seem plausible to me as being selected for early in our evolution.I think you have some pretty large blind and deaf spots regarding this kind of evidence and you put WAY too much trust in your own feelings being indicative of reality.

quote:

---

I took the key points that I wish to address from this statement. I read the book and found that the beliefs which I have been taught and which I chose to embrace were in fact verified by many like minded people. These are not the swindling televangelists...these are respected (yes there are some!) leaders in Christian teaching. Some key points?

​

Nobody really seeks God. It is an observed trait that humans really don't wish to find a God who does not allow them to define and draft the terms of the relationship.

---

I would say that humans have been drafting the terms of the arrangement of the "relationship" for as long as they have believed in God/gods/spirits.Do you believe that the ancient Greeks pretty much made up their pantheon of gods to explain various natural phenomena and justify their actions? I do, and I think you probably do, too.Now, I also believe that the ancient Jews made up their one God (borrowing heavily from previous religions and other mythological stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh which you probably do not accept as True) to explain various natural phenomena and to justify their actions.What you have not been able to tell me is why your belief is any different from their belief? They had lots and lots of people believing just the same as they. The Greeks and Romans ruled much of the world for around 3,000 years. Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism all go back much farther than Christianity and the Chinese culture which sustained all three is hundreds of thousands of years old. Taoism especially is extremely old.If you want to place a ot of stock in how many people believe the same thing, they you had better convert to one of these older religions which has had many more people practice them over the centuries compared to Evangelical Christianity, and they have shown their truth through survival.

quote:

---

Everybody wants a God of human verification and definition, but NOBODY wants a God who actually out thinks us in every capacity. Naturally there is never any evidence for such a God, for He is beyond quantification.

---

But the God of the Bible is NOTHING if he isn't a God of human verification and definition!

---

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

The pending existence of God is pretty dang important. I mean if God is the only reason for living and there is an afterlife then the question of his existence is really the most important of life.

---

I guess so, if you accept those two rather enormous "ifs".But, you don't really know if those two "ifs" are valid or not.

quote:

---

So for most people I think it is pretty hard to hold a completely neutral ground as an agnostic and say "I don't know and I have no opinion one way or the other."

---

To not be able to reach a conclusion, yet still be leaning one way or another due to the consideration of evidence or logical analysis, is not a flawed position.

quote:

---

Most agnostics would tend to say, "I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty darn sure God doesn't exist," and then equate God to something absurd

---

But the idea of God existing IS absurd from an objective standpoint.You are coming at this already invested in your own mythology. You have great respect for and awe in your own conception of God and no respect at all and nothing but disdain for any other concept which you happen to not agree with. You have your personal preferred beliefs set up on an untouchable pedestal, revered and honored, but all the rest of the world's beliefs you can look at without reverence, and so can label them "absurd".An agnostic is not invested in any mythology, so they can evaluate all of them on a fairly equal basis, or at least with much less prejudice than you can. We have no sacred cows.

quote:

---

because it feels better and is more reassuring to think that you are right rather than to think that you don't know.

---

This sword cuts both ways, my friend.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2005 10:12 AM

---

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson