Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism...

[GostHacked]

"When you find out..." ? That assumes an afterlife, you silly boy...

Actually it does not assume an afterlife, you won't know about it until you are dead. It's pure speculation at this point. So even if you do find the answer when you are dead how do you plan to share that knowledge with the living?

[M.Dancer]

Actually it does not assume an afterlife, you won't know about it until you are dead.

And even then you might not.

[Michael Hardner]

And even then you might not.

Which was my point.

[Oleg Bach]

Agreed...."God" could get off a bus in Buffalo, NY and announce his existence. I would just change the channel.

Might be better to have a chat with God and get some privledged information- spin it and start a lucrative chruch- then of course we would have to kill God...wonder if he would see us sneaking up? God is so powerful that he can make himself as weak as a lamb...I am sure he does not give a shit if we believe or not.

[Guest TrueMetis]

with 100% certainty I know that I exist, the earth exists, gravity exists, that light exists...with 100% certainty I know that there is no Easter bunny, tooth fairy, Santa Claus nor any god of any sort...an absence of evidence is not evidence...

And it is entirely possible you're hallucinating. I don't think a god exsists either but I'm not going to say I am 100% sure.

[Bonam]

And it is entirely possible you're hallucinating. I don't think a god exsists either but I'm not going to say I am 100% sure.

A hallucination which is convincing enough to portray itself as reality to an individual for the span of their life may as well be reality.

[Guest TrueMetis]

A hallucination which is convincing enough to portray itself as reality to an individual for the span of their life may as well be reality.

True , but it still is not reality. I stand by my statement that nothing is 100% certain.

[Bonam]

True , but it still is not reality. I stand by my statement that nothing is 100% certain.

Do you stand by your statement 100%?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Do you stand by your statement 100%?

Nope, 99% though.

[Bonam]

Nope, 99% though.

Then you accept that it is possible that you are wrong and certain things could indeed be 100% certain.

In contrast, I am 100% certain that certain things can be 100% certain.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Then you accept that it is possible that you are wrong and certain things could indeed be 100% certain.

Yes and? Anything is possible.

In contrast, I am 100% certain that certain things can be 100% certain.

Good for you, I'm not.

[GostHacked]

And even then you might not.

Exactly, so I will remain agnostic.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In contrast, I am 100% certain that certain things can be 100% certain.

...and this is the nub of it.....certainty is a god's worst enemy. Even in the face of "certain" death, man has invented the greatest uncertainty of all....one that will be always be safe from the prying eyes of science.

God is really the abstract manifestation of many such unknowns.

[Bonam]

...and this is the nub of it.....certainty is a god's worst enemy. Even in the face of "certain" death, man has invented the greatest uncertainty of all....one that will be always be safe from the prying eyes of science.

I dunno, those prying eyes are pretty hard to keep away. I'm sure we'll be able to create our own "afterlife" eventually. I.e. you die, but then you just wake up in your backup clone.

[maple_leafs182]

I'm panthiest

I do not believe god created the universe, I believe god is the universe, we are all god.

[MightyAC]

I guess I would be considered an atheist, but I find labeling a lack of belief in something to be a silly practice. We don't have to label our lack of belief in other absurd ideas. I don't declare my lack of belief in ghosts, astrology or a living Elvis.

[Moonlight Graham]

Do you think disbelief in Leprechauns is a statement of faith?

No, i think it can proven through science that they don't exist. We have explored virtually the entire earth, and never found leprechauns or any evidence they may exist.

With God, we have yet to explore the edges of the universe or beyond our universe. Something may have created this universe, whether it be a God or some other powerful being in a labcoat. We do not have the technological means to prove or disprove it.

[Shwa]

No, i think it can proven through science that they don't exist. We have explored virtually the entire earth, and never found leprechauns or any evidence they may exist.

Well your statement here suffers from at least two glaring problems: one, the earth is a HUMONGOUS place and you would be hard pressed to prove that every nook and cranny has been searched AND searched for evidence of Leprechauns; two, the least of which is an acceptable definition of 'Leprechauns.'

Interestingly enough - many cultures from all over the entire earth have folktales of a mysterious 'little people.'

[MightyAC]

I'm not a statistician but I would assign very similar probabilities to the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, a god and the flying spaghetti monster. Sure the likelihood of their existence hovers near zero but we cannot completely rule out the possibility can we?

[Michael Hardner]

In any case, comparing something as obviously made-up by humans as leprechauns with a bigger question as to what lies beyond the physical world isn't helpful.

Of course, somewhere in between those extreme views there is a myth of a bearded man who lives in the sky and looks down on us. What are we to do with that one ? I would say that the old man in the sky represents a little bit of the made-up part, and a little bit of the larger question.

In that the larger questions are personal and deserving of respect, I would say that it's helpful for people to respect individual choices on those questions, and let alone the fact that they are tied to some other beliefs that appear ridiculous to disbelievers.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not a statistician but I would assign very similar probabilities to the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, a god and the flying spaghetti monster. Sure the likelihood of their existence hovers near zero but we cannot completely rule out the possibility can we?

Making fun of peoples' metaphysical beliefs isn't going to unify us or get us anywhere.

[TimG]

I would say that the old man in the sky represents a little bit of the made-up part, and a little bit of the larger question.

I see no difference between believing in an old man in the sky, believing that life begins at birth or believing in one person one vote. All arbitrary beliefs that cannot be objectively shown to be correct although they can be rationalized.

The problem is what one does with the beliefs. An atheist government that persecutes believers is just as bad as a Islamic one that passes death sentences on people who defile the image of Mohammad.

Edited July 8, 2010 by TimG

[MightyAC]

Making fun of peoples' metaphysical beliefs isn't going to unify us or get us anywhere.

I'm not making fun of peoples' metaphysical beliefs. I simply showed that there are many ideas that we cannot fully disprove yet that does not by process of elimination make them true.

When we debate and discuss ideas why would one person's belief in an Abrahamic god demand different treatment than another person's belief in pixies, Thor, Zeus, leprechauns, witchcraft, a living Elvis or the flying spaghetti monster?

[bush_cheney2004]

I see no difference between believing in an old man in the sky, believing that life begins at birth or believing in one person one vote. All arbitrary beliefs that cannot be objectively shown to be correct although they can be rationalized.

Agreed...all such notions can be distilled as belief systems that enjoy varying degrees of public and/or private support. I prefer the paganism of applied physics!

[Michael Hardner]

I see no difference between believing in an old man in the sky, believing that life begins at birth or believing in one person one vote. All arbitrary beliefs that cannot be objectively shown to be correct although they can be rationalized.

The problem is what one does with the beliefs. An atheist government that persecutes believers is just as bad as a Islamic one that passes death sentences on people who defile the image of Mohammad.

I agree. I also think that one should criticize the implementations of the beliefs (as you said it) and not the beliefs themselves.

And I just noticed implicit in your post is the belief that persecuting people is "bad". You seem like you base your assessments on a well thought-out philosophy, so I expect you understand your own irrational beliefs.