[]{}#%Theological Seminar%#}{[]

Welcome all... Please bring forth all your religious affiliations and introduce it to the community. I am quite interested in everyone's religious affiliation... If you do not belong to any that's okay tell us why.

So let's get to it... The big question.


Do you believe in God?

I'm an agnostic atheist, meaning I think the universe is unknowable, including the answer to the question about god, and I also think it's more likely that there's no such thing as God and he's just a fanciful fabrication of the human mind in a futile attempt to explain the unknown.

The part I'm reasonably certain of is that the antropomoprhic representation of God as seen in most religions is utter bullshit. If there is some higher power, it should be as far away from us as we are from bacteria.

I also find it extremely strange and even a little bit insane to blindly believe in the writings of thousand-year-old books in the present day and age when we have so much information about the thousands of religions which have existed and exist today, the way religion appeared and the historical, social and psychological mechanisms which make it tick.

Atheists display some similarities to religious people, meaning they seem strangely certain in the answer to a question which is IMO unanswerable.

To end my exposition, since for me this is a question without an answer, I think it's an unproductive waste of time to argue about it.

edit: funny, I saw this in 9gag just after I posted here:

"

Bars wrote:

I'm an agnostic atheist, meaning I think the universe is unknowable, including the answer to the question about god, and I also think it's more likely that there's no such thing as God and he's just a fanciful fabrication of the human mind in a futile attempt to explain the unknown.

The part I'm reasonably certain of is that the antropomoprhic representation of God as seen in most religions is utter bullshit. If there is some higher power, it should be as far away from us as we are from bacteria.

I also find it extremely strange and even a little bit insane to blindly believe in the writings of thousand-year-old books in the present day and age when we have so much information about the thousands of religions which have existed and exist today, the way religion appeared and the historical, social and psychological mechanisms which make it tick.

Atheists display some similarities to religious people, meaning they seem strangely certain in the answer to a question which is IMO unanswerable.

To end my exposition, since for me this is a question without an answer, I think it's an unproductive waste of time to argue about it.

edit: funny, I saw this in 9gag just after I posted here:

That's freaking funny as hell 😂

I just say I'm an atheist.

Regarding Bars' idea that the question is unanswerable: by that same logic, almost everything is unanswerable. Newton thought he had gravity pegged down, and he almost did, but Einstein found the exceptions. Does this mean Newton was wrong? Does it mean Einstein will, at some point, also be proven wrong?

Every question of scientific experimentation - every single one - is one which is our best answer given the data at our disposal. It exists until we find something which explains even better. Science never proves its hypothesises, it just disconfirms the bad ones.

So to say "we don't know it there is a God or not" is like Newton saying "I don't know how gravity works" or Einstein saying "I don't know how relativity works." It shows such an utter lack of conviction in the evidence and theory of all that we know that you're willing to accept that everything we've worked so hard to learn could be wrong.

Do you think we're in the Matrix?

There is no God. The fact that such a conclusion is a posteriori is implied and doesn't need to be apologized for.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I just say I'm an atheist.

Regarding Bars' idea that the question is unanswerable: by that same logic, almost everything is unanswerable. Newton thought he had gravity pegged down, and he almost did, but Einstein found the exceptions. Does this mean Newton was wrong? Does it mean Einstein will, at some point, also be proven wrong?

Every question of scientific experimentation - every single one - is one which is our best answer given the data at our disposal. It exists until we find something which explains even better. Science never proves its hypothesises, it just disconfirms the bad ones.

So to say "we don't know it there is a God or not" is like Newton saying "I don't know how gravity works" or Einstein saying "I don't know how relativity works." It shows such an utter lack of conviction in the evidence and theory of all that we know that you're willing to accept that everything we've worked so hard to learn could be wrong.

Do you think we're in the Matrix?

There is no God. The fact that such a conclusion is a posteriori is implied and doesn't need to be apologized for.

First off, gravity and other subjects of scientific research are specific forces or events you can actually observe, measure and tinker with. There are a few issues with the term 'God':

1. Anyone can define it as they like. I could say that I assume the universe is deterministic and operates following strict laws which are there regardless if we understand them and not... and that God is the entirety of these laws, the relentless determinism, the flawless and unfathomable machine of the universe... could you still tell me God doesn't exist?

2. Assuming we're talking about God in the sense of Christianity or Islam, as an omnipotent and omniscient force, this is an extremely murky topic. For all practical purposes, arguing about it is a complete waste of time because of the inherent problems of having to prove a negative (God doesn't exist) and so forth. It's a question of faith. Nevertheless, you can't really know if there is one or not. You choose to believe there isn't, which is fundamentally as much a leap of faith as believing in God, only in the opposite direction. It might be a more rational choice: you've analyzed all the information available to you and it seems pretty fucking likely the world's dominant religions are bullshit. It still has some degree of faith in it.

So, if your position is 'there's no God', mine could be summarized as 'I think there isn't but I'm not entirely sure and honestly, I don't care'.

I also agree pretty much everything is unanswerable - we just work with degrees of plausibility. We choose to assign rounded values, one or zero, to infinite fractions - or we wouldn't be able to say anything. The problem with God is, we can't be sure if there's even a fraction to begin with. It's just a glimpse of a fractal which could be infinite in all directions or might be just a mirage on the surface of our thoughts.


And, since I think we always need a degree of humour to stay sane in talks about life, the universe and everything and I already ended my previous post with a joke, here's another one:

'God is dead' - Nietzsche, 1882
'Nietzsche is dead' - God, 1900

George Carlin was a funny mofo and he had a lot to say regarding religion. This one pretty much echos my feelings. :)

Bonus vid

"

Shovelcut wrote:

George Carlin was a funny mofo and he had a lot to say regarding religion. This one pretty much echos my feelings. :)

Bonus vid

Yeah, Religion is Bullshit is a classic monologue :)

whatever the case i think we all just have to disagree that my god is the best god.

Peace,

-Boem-

@Bars: Perhaps I should delve into more epistemological detail.

We begin with our senses and our consciousness. Through our consciousness we can control some of our muscles, define terms, store memories, form hypotheses, and have faith. That's about it.

Sense data is a stream. It isn't all saved; we don't remember everything. The most efficient way to remember is through concept formation - using words with definitions. Remembering every detail of a picture is difficult. Remembering the point of that Puncture, expressed in words, is easy.

In this way, we can have an unwavering faith regarding a priori knowledge. 2+2=4. If we are seeing something (now), we're seeing it. If we remember something, then we remember it (why we saw it, whether it was real, whether the memory is accurate, etc, is a different conclusion).

Hypotheses work differently. A hypothesis can never be proven, only refuted. Performing experiments over and over again (with our muscles, to create relevant sensory data) to test a hypothesis might lend further support, but never solves.

This is where faith comes in. Faith is the thought process which elevates a personal hypothesis to a personal theory. It is the distance between the support for a hypothesis and its actual belief.

All a posteriori knowledge is the result of the scientific method. Even the belief in God; you cannot show me a person who believes in God who never sensed anything which they interpret as evidence to support their belief. Even "reality exists" is a theory, not an axiom; go watch some newborns, experimenting with their limbs, piecing together the astonishing idea that their limbs and the world they sense are connected somehow.

Thus: all a priori knowledge is deductive and certain in nature, and all a posteriori knowledge is inductive (meaning: a matter of evidentiary support and faith) and could be refuted.

But how far can you get, how can you even live without constant support, if you do not act on your inductive conclusions?

This is why I put your claim that God might exist because evidence is "inconclusive" in the same pile of garbage ideas as "our reality might be fake and we're actually in The Matrix." You are holding out on putting your faith into a position heavily supported by evidence, because you are giving entirely too much credit to a conspiracy theory with no legitimate evidentiary support.

Don't get me wrong: it's wise to keep a chain of accountability in your thoughts and to remember which things are deductive and which are inductive. It's wise to use critical thinking to be on the lookout for evidence which refutes theories you've put your faith into. But your actions show what you truly believe.

I'm an agnostic and I'd sign Bars' first post.

In RL discussions I always take the opposing site for fun.^^