Is there a God?

[Yantorsen]

Sorry, but you're incorrect. Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot prove a god does or doesn't exist. Or from the dictionary, an agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.". Look it up.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god/belief there is no god. Same difference. Atheism has no requirement for faith. As an atheist, I am not making any belief claim and so how would I possibly need any faith?

its not the same at all. one is a belief that god does not exist, this requires faith because there is no evidence to support god not existing.

Agnosticism is like I said before I like you've said above not having a position on it because you beleive it is not possible to know. (or in some peoples cases, they just don't care)

Atheism isn't "anti-religion" at all. Some atheists may be anti-religion, some others may not care less about religion.

I didn't say it was, I said Stalin was, and that was because of his atheistic views.

 

[RichardC27]

Thank God I'm an Atheist!!

Let's keep religion off this forum!

:bang:

FWIW I do think it's a valid topic, and there have been some great responses to this, from all sides of the fence.

 

[Yantorsen]

And anyway, if there was a God, why would He let people be Muslim, or Hindi, or Pagan, or any other religion you care to think of?

two reasons:

A) god could exist outside the context of religion

B) some believe any religion leads to "heaven/god" in that it doesn't matter as long as you are good/worship god somehow etc.


oh and of course C) free will, god not interferring and most religions are just a load of tosh...

 

[Caledonia]

There's only 2 relgions on TP Canonism and Nikonism and they provoke enough wars without any other religions.

 

[Yantorsen]

There's only 2 relgions on TP Canonism and Nikonism and they provoke enough wars without any other religions.

 

[welly]

its not the same at all. one is a belief that god does not exist, this requires faith because there is no evidence to support god not existing.

It IS the same: lack of belief in god/belief there is no god. It's exactly the same. If you have a belief that there is no god, you have a lack of belief in a god. Those statements mean the same thing and neither of these statements require faith because they're not making a belief claim. To what end must I need faith to be an atheist? I must have faith there is no god or... what? I'm not claiming anything. The theist claims their sky fairy created all without evidence to prove that was the case and must have faith that this is correct stance. The atheist simply doesn't believe in a god. No faith is required as no claim is being made.

Agnosticism is NOTHING like you said before:

"And your also incorrect on your definiation of an atheist. your describing and agnostic when you say "IT's purely a lack of belief in a god or gods".

That is NOT agnosticism. A lack of belief in a god is atheism.

Regarding your final claim of:

I didn't say it was, I said Stalin was, and that was because of his atheistic views.

You then said

So if you like he did it in the name of "anti-religion", but that may as well be atheism.

No, it may as well not be atheism. Atheism isn't "anti-religion".

 

[Yantorsen]

It IS the same: lack of belief in god/belief there is no god. It's exactly the same. If you have a belief that there is no god, you have a lack of belief in a god. Those statements mean the same thing and neither of these statements require faith because they're not making a belief claim. To what end must I need faith to be an atheist? I must have faith there is no god or... what? I'm not claiming anything. The theist claims their sky fairy created all without evidence to prove that was the case and must have faith that this is correct stance. The atheist simply doesn't believe in a god. No faith is required as no claim is being made.

No, there clearly is a belief claim in "I believe there is no God", it is most definatley faith based because there is no evidence to suggest there is no god, so it is infact blind faith.

Agnosticism is NOTHING like you said before:



That is NOT agnosticism. A lack of belief in a god is atheism.

see above.

and by that definition every non-religious person is an atheist, which is not the case.

Regarding your final claim of:



You then said



No, it may as well not be atheism. Atheism isn't "anti-religion".

here I was saying that in Stalin's case it was because of Atheism, I never actually said anti-religion = atheism.

 

[Yantorsen]

This is getting into semantics a bit now anyway, may as well move the discussion on unless you have anything else to say.

 

[Just Dave]

like thread closed

 

[Yantorsen]

like thread closed

no as in... "another thesis"

 

[welly]

No, there clearly is a belief claim in "I believe there is no God", it is most definatley faith based because there is no evidence to suggest there is no god, so it is infact blind faith.

Could I suggest you take a read of this link: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/faith.htm

That will explain my position far more clearly than I appear to be able to do.

here I was saying that in Stalin's case it was because of Atheism, I never actually said anti-religion = atheism.

As regards to Stalin and atheism taking the blame for his actions, have a read of this:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/hitlerstalin.html

 

[Yantorsen]

Religion has been a very Good way of controlling people over the years. If you think about it, all religion does is gives you a set of standards to live your life by, and a "higher power" to which you will have to answer to if you don't follow the rules.

These days, with no religion, and no control, look at what is happening to society.

I'm not saying that all the controls that religion puts on people have been, in my opinion, good. Look at the treatment of homosexuality, women, people with disabilities etc.

But, if you look at the principle of no sex before marriage. It meant, in a time before contraception, that not only were diseases largely controlled, but that children where bought into the world with 2 or more people to support them, where no one else would be able to help.

Now we have contraception, a society that is showing that marriage is too big a commitment, and more teenage pregnancies and children born out of wedlock than ever.

Now, I'm not saying that this is outright a bad thing, but it's not the best, and every situation is different.

A couple these days finds it easier to have a child (or buy a house) than to commit to marriage. Even though of the three, the marriage is arguably the one with least commitment. With a child, you are tied to the other person for life, and with a house you are jointly responcible until one of you buys t'other one out, or you both sell up. And with the housing market like it is, that will be very hard.

At least with a marriage (and I have 7 years of it under my belt, and 2 kids, and a house) you can not see each other for a year, have a few minutes in court and it's like it never happened.

Personally, I think the Media is the new religion. It's the only method of control in society. If you want everyone to know about something, you don't pass it round a group of leaders who can then talk to massive congregations. Nope, you post it on the net, get a tv ad, or get the message over through a tv show of some kind.

peice said.

the problem is your post is logically flawed.

you talk about moral mistreatment of gays and the like showing how religion is out of date (not true/correct). But you are talking about objective morality, which needs a higher being such as a God to even exist. Unless you don't beleive in objective morality and I've mis interpreted what you said, if thats the case I'm sorry.

 

[Just Dave]

no as in... "another thesis"

Pity

 

[Yantorsen]

Could I suggest you take a read of this link: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/faith.htm

That will explain my position far more clearly than I appear to be able to do.

well I've just read that link and tbh its a load on atheist bias tosh (imo of course ) it doesnt change anything, both positions require faith. I don't see how you can say they don't?

As regards to Stalin and atheism taking the blame for his actions, have a read of this:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/hitlerstalin.html

I never said Hitler was an atheist. I think that if stalin, pol pot, mao etc. had a moral structure (such as a religion) that they may not have been so keen on marxism. However that is speculation, either way, its well known that stalin killed people in the church because he was frightened they were more powerful than him.

and the link says that there murders were not a direct result of there atheism, but arguably nor were the crusades a direct result of christianity, it was just a political campaign to gain land you could argue.

 

[welly]

well I've just read that link and tbh its a load on atheist bias tosh (imo of course ) it doesnt change anything, both positions require faith. I don't see how you can say they don't?

I would love for you to explain what faith is required of an atheist. Again, to what end must I need faith that god doesn't exist? I simply don't need faith to not believe in god. Believing in something requires faith. Not believing in something, requires nothing. And like I said before, atheism isn't a belief claim. It's a negative. It's NOT a belief. Do you have faith that Santa Claus doesn't exist? Why would this require you to have faigth? You simply DON'T believe Santa Claus exists. That lack of belief doesn't require faith. It's a negative stance. I don't see how you can't see this?

 

[Yantorsen]

Your getting atheism and agnosticism confused.

I don't believe in fairies, but I don't believe they do not exist.

And if like you say you only have no belief that a god exists then you are an agnostic. If you believe that there is no god then you are an atheist. Which is why many people who say they are atheist are actually agnostic.

 

[who?]

I believe that this thread is trolling.

I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow.

I have no belief that the sun will come up because it is tied to anyone's chariot or being pushed by a dung beetle.

I believe that Yantorsen seems to think denigrating non-believers is a good idea.

I have no problem with people believing what they want but I have no interest in having them spout their mumbo jumbo at me on a photography forum.

There are plenty of forums for discussion of belief systems - I think this topic should go visit one of them.

 

[andy_fozzy]

Personally, the whole religion thing leaves me a bit cold. I just can't get my head around the concept of God etc, when there is so much scientific evidence in the modern world to prove that such a concept is untrue. Even 100 years ago, so little was understood that people could have made a credible argument for 'a higher power', for want of a better term.

The only religion I have any time for really is Buddhism, as this is a religion of your own mind, rather than worshipping any Gods.

And anyway, if there was a God, why would He let people be Muslim, or Hindi, or Pagan, or any other religion you care to think of?

:donsflameproofsuit:

Religion is the root of all evil

You both summed it all up for me.
Saves me typing anymore, thanks!!!!

 

[God]

*coughs*

 

[Galaxy66]

 

[who?]

If only that join date was 4004BC

 

[welly]

Your getting atheism and agnosticism confused.

I don't believe in fairies, but I don't believe they do not exist.

And if like you say you only have no belief that a god exists then you are an agnostic. If you believe that there is no god then you are an atheist. Which is why many people who say they are atheist are actually agnostic.

I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect as to the definition of an agnostic. Seriously, look it up and your definition is just wrong.

"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

"an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge."

"The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."

These definitions of an agnostic is COMPLETELY different to "And if like you say you only have no belief that a god exists then you are an agnostic".

If you can't see that, then I'm not continuing any further in this discussion.

 

[CaptainPenguin]

I don't agree that religion causes all the trouble we see around us, it's peoples intolerance of other folks beliefs that causes the trouble.

I believe in God, you may not, but I don't want to harm you because of that!

Tolerance of each other is the key.

Tolerance is the key word here and I think in this day and age it is a word very relevant to photography,how many stories do we see that portray anybody with a "Professioinal" camera being treated as some sort of pervert

 

[Yantorsen]

I believe that Yantorsen seems to think denigrating non-believers is a good idea.

I'm a non believer myself.

 

[Yantorsen]

I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect as to the definition of an agnostic. Seriously, look it up and your definition is just wrong.

"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

"an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge."

"The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."

These definitions of an agnostic is COMPLETELY different to "And if like you say you only have no belief that a god exists then you are an agnostic".

If you can't see that, then I'm not continuing any further in this discussion.

No if an agnostic is as you rightly say can be all of the above then they have no belief in god, they do not believe in god. But they still don't believe that god doesn't exist, that would require something to make that leap from not knowing to knowing that god doesn't exist; evidence or faith.


take fairies, you don't believe they exist, but you'd be hard pressed to say that you believe they don't exist.

 

[Cobra]

DON'T believe Santa Claus exists.

Right thats one lump of coal for you my lad!

*coughs*

Tell me God
1) If you created heaven and earth where does Charlie Darwin fit into
your grand scheme of things? surley by "creating" him you have made a rod for your own back?

2) The other thing I would like to know is were you really an astonaught seems feesable to me :shrug:

 

[Marcel]

Is there a God?

Yes

 

[Flash In The Pan]

A more pertinent question is does anyone here believe in Yantorsen?

 

[Marc]

Yes

Well I think that settles the argument once an for all!

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

"an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge."

Yep, I'll go with that one, I don't believe a God exists ... although I have used hypocritical capital letters in that sentence.

I do however believe that the ultimate knowledge may be glimpsed through the new sciences, genetics, quantum physics, string theories, the strong and week forces, dimensions, theirs a heap of new understandings and unknowns, but just the fact we have so many new questions can only mean there are new answers! ... clearly there's one heck of another world of science out their, our previous knowledge being just a small part of the new overall picture..

So science is chasing the same answers as faith for me, we're just animals who are able to question our own existence so ultimately we're all looking for some clarity and some answers as to why....

Personally, before the 'new sciences' I felt certain that we lived and died, our energy dispersed and our bodies returned to star dust and all that jazz...

Nowadays I'm not so sure, I have seen ghosts, ya see, with three army friends, all clear headed and good vision (no photos sorry) twas only 30ft away and intensely real for all of us. :shrug: ... The problem for me is that I can't deny myself of what I actually witnessed, so I'm a bit ^%$^ aren't I. I really don't believe in god, I need evidence ...

To me, the evidence of my life fits far more readily into the new sciences that it does to there being a God...

... and they have been right about a lot of stuff so far..

 

[PigleT]

or alternatively you could say that its not because religion is controlling in the kind of iron fisted way, but it actually provides people with a reason to be well behaved, and a moral framework, and a desire to please "god".

I'm rather glad of the secularization of society and the "consumer" approach to religion. The fact that someone here asked "the religion question" only underlines a desire to think independently of any one prescribed framework, which is good; it moves the responsibility onto the religious organizations to justify themselves in a fair manner, which is also good.

If I might be permitted to reword the question in search of precision, I'm not interested in "a god", largely because discussion of such an entity rapidly descends to human-interest social/behavioural issues and matters of mere tribal identity. However, lose the indefinite article, and God as a concept must be present at scales other than things 1-2m tall - a God of the universe, a God of quantum mechanics, a God not defined as "a being" but rather more like "the sum of all experiences" (and then some). So I'm not a conventional theist, might be slightly panentheist, and happen to fit into a fairly liberal Christian tradition.

 

[God]

I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.

 

[PigleT]

I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.

Here, have a zebra crossing.

 

[Cobra]

I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.

1IN THE BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth.
2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
3And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light.
and you could see for k'in miles
and so the canonites and nikonites came in from the darkness so that they might 'tog

Genesis 1-3
What more proof do you need :shrug:

 

[birdy961]

Amen

 

[Yantorsen]

1IN THE BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth.
2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
3And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light.
and you could see for k'in miles
and so the canonites and nikonites came in from the darkness so that they might 'tog

Genesis 1-3
What more proof do you need :shrug:

were not just talking about the abrahamic god you know.

and even if we were then I could get into a scripture battle with you, but that is very complex and tbh (will all respect to you) you probably won't know anything about it. I'm talking about how books were chosen for the biblical cannon etc and there context etc..

I know I'm sounding like a christian but im not I just beleive you can't just discount something because its fashionable.

 

[Yantorsen]

Tell me God
1) If you created heaven and earth where does Charlie Darwin fit into
your grand scheme of things? surley by "creating" him you have made a rod for your own back?

what does charles darwin have to do with how earth or "heaven" being created?

 

[RichardC27]

He doesn't, but didn't God create the Earth, and everything in it. Apart from things the Church doesn't like, or are just downright bad, which can conveniently be attributed to our good friend Satan.

IMHO Cobra that's a brilliant point

 

[Yantorsen]

He doesn't, but didn't God create the Earth, and everything in it. Apart from things the Church doesn't like, or are just downright bad, which can conveniently be attributed to our good friend Satan.

IMHO Cobra that's a brilliant point

no the general christian view is that god created everything, and gave everything free will, free will was abused and bad things happened.


Not that satan creates all the bad things.

 

[Cobra]

......then I could get into a scripture battle with you, but that is very complex and tbh (will all respect to you) you probably won't know anything about it.

I'm talking about how books were chosen for the biblical cannon etc and there context etc..

I think I covered that bit and so the canonites and nikonites came in from the darkness so that they might 'tog :shrug:
Not that I have seen any references to "books" in your "arguement"

what does charles darwin have to do with how earth or "heaven" being created?

quote Genisis 1-3 :26 &:27
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Darwin (amoungst others) knocked that on its arse
with the "voyage of the Beagle"