Poll - Belief in God

Interesting point of view. A few questions for you, if you don't mind me asking:
Do you believe in the concept of sin?
In your opinion, do you believe that the God of Abraham gave man free will?
If so, would that help explain man's mistakes?
Is is possible that a perfect being created imperfect beings by design to test their loyalty?
I have others, but I'll stop here.
 
I think ever person is born knowing the basics of what is sin. You know when you are doing something wrong. Have you ever wondered why you know this? I think these are the guide lines for what sin is. You don't need to read the Bible to know what sin is and you don't need anyone to tell you what it is. The Bible does shed a little more light on sin stating that it can be forgiven if you ask for forgiveness. Even this is built into people by them feeling guilt. I think God made us this way so that regardless of your religion or knowledge of God you would know how to live a good life and therefore be able to make it into heaven.



I agree with the Christian crowd on this one. God did give people free will. What would be the point of not doing so?



It would explain how evil impacts us. I don't think that it alone is the cause of man's mistakes. God has made mistakes too especially when it came to a rebellion in heaven. Man is not totally at fault for the way things are but our free will does play an affect on it.



I'm currently in a debate similar to this one in another thread. My answer is yes it would be possible for a perfect being to create imperfect being in order to test them, however I don't believer that it is possible that a perfect and all-knowing being would do this. An all-knowing being would already know the results of the test before it began therefore it would test their perfection to actual do a test like this.



I'll gladly try and answer any other questions you have.
 
I admit that there are agnostics that are content to settling at no position. thats straddling the fence. but there are also agnostics that are not settled at being agnostics, but are actively seeking the truth and are not satisfied with the idea of unanswered questions. these agnostics are trying to find whether they can believe in the existence or non-existence of God, and until they find it they will continue until they are convinced that either position is best. i call it decided agnostics and undecided agnostics
 
excerpt from:
Agnostics
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
"The Atheist position is that the traditionalist historical concepts of god are quite fallacious and that the notion of some ``super power'' is not now susceptible of proof by existing scientific methoRAB or by the accumulation of knowledge presently accessible to man. Therefore the Atheists live as if there were no god, no efficacy in prayer, and no life after death. We are free from theism. We bet everything on this as being accurate.
The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/madalyn_ohair/agnostic.html

Translation: fence sitters :xgood:
 
That doesn't sound like an Agnostic reply. I don't know of any Agnostics that acknowledge the concept of sin.

Agreed.

Agreed.


I disagree. I believe that it's possible to be "all-knowing" without being a fortuneteller. Even though we know about prophesies from the Biblical stories, especially those foretelling of the death of Christ, does that mean that God had to know how his creations would behave BEFORE they even existed?
While I believe that the Bible is replete with stories of man's frailty, does it really speak about God's?


Much appreciated. It's not often that I run across an Agnostic enigma. :smile:
 
What would you characterize it as then?



Lets simplify it then. Do you believe God knows what will happen tomorrow before it occurs? Do you believe something that is all-knowing has to know what will happen tomorrow before it occurs? The very definition of all-knowing means they will know all. There is nothing that they don't know. They have to know about everything regardless as to whether it seems logically possible or not. Otherwise they are not all-knowing. All is not a word that has a flimsy definition.
 
Leviathan,

This is elementary logic. If you are unaware of, or can't understand, these concepts, then you really shouldn't be commenting on whether or not something is logical.

These statements are not my opinion. They are based SOUNDLY in logic. It's up to you whether or not to accept them, you have a right to your OPINION.

1. thebootfitter dealt with this one for the most part.

Examples -

Simplest of all, prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Bigfoot doesn't exist. I DARE you.

I say you're addicted to a drug that we have no known way to test for. Prove that you aren't.

I say that you assaulted a man, who has since died, and there were no witnesses and no physical evidence of the crime. Prove you didn't do it.

There's a reason why you're innocent until proven guilty and not vice versa.

2. Again, very simple. A lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Same examples -

I don't have Bigfoot in a cage, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

Just because I can't prove you're addicted to that drug, doesn't mean you aren't.

Just because I can't prove you assaulted that man doesn't mean you didn't.

Therefore, despite you wishing it was the case, it is NOT logical to state that not being able to prove something doesn't exist means it doesn't exist.

I'm not trying to ram anything down anyone's throat. I have stated very clearly the simple tenets of logic. Their implications can be a little unnerving and aggravating, I'll certainly attest to that.

Anyhoo, do with them as you please.

Waxy
 
I see your point, but that would mean that those who don't have a clue would be classified as agnostic.

But, then again, I guess they would be, politically speaking...
 
This has got to be one of the silliest things I have ever heard. Preaching that atheism is illogical is just as stupid as me saying theism is illogical because one believes in something that they can never prove. That's pretty clear. Now, if both of our arguements were really true, than everyone would have to be agnostic (not being able to confirm or discount the possibility of God). So I guess we are all agnostic really, right?
 
What's your definition of "sin"? I define it as something obstructs the facilitation of goodness - love. As you can see, this doesn't include the stereotypical Judeo-Christian idea of "sin".
 
You're confusing logic with reason or probability. They are not synonymous.

1) This can easily be reversed. Prove that there ISN'T a magical number where all numbers stop. I say infinity is a flawed concept. I can't prove that I'm right, but you can't prove that I'm wrong.

I would gladly admit that Pegasys could exist, and then I'd challenge you to prove conclusively that it doesn't. Care to place a wager on the outcome?

Your problem here is that you are using assumptions and probabilities. They are "illegal" when dealing with pure logic. It is reasonable to conclude that Pegasys does not exist, but it is not logical, in the strict sense of the word, to state as a fact that Pegasys does not exist when it cannot be proven.

Hopefully you can see that distinction.

Waxy
 
Kind of funny, though, how there isn't a definition for someone who: isn't sure if they believe in logic. Ponder that one... ;)

You make the assumption that an agnostic is not seeking "proof". Proof comes in many forms such as faith and logic. It is pretty hard to swallow faith when our entire world is built on logic. You could see where one may be a little skeptical in putting faith into something that has no logical evidence. There is nothing wrong with searching for answers. It is an intellectual process. So, therefore, I believe that choosing agnosticism is as noble a choice as any.

Theists, on the other hand, say that they believe that God does exist. That is a firm stance based on pure faith. No equivocation. It is an intellectually honest assessment; and wrong ofcourse, IMO.
 
Let's not be bashing the agnostics, okay. An agnostic is simply a person who hasn't decided what they believe in. It's quite an easy perdicament to fall in to.

They have to first weigh logic and belief. Assuming they get past the logic barrier (rational belief of the existence of a higher being), they now have to determine what make of religion they believe is true or correct (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others I don't care to mention). Then, once they have chosen their make, they have, in most cases, a hundred or more different models to choose from (Catholic, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Calvinist (these people actually still exist), Jesuit, or just plain christian...Or get your degree, you could major in busi... oh wait..sorry). After this endeavor, they have to start making conscious decisions as to what they believe and how to interpret such precious texts as flawless and error-free as the bible is.

The bottom line is that an agnostic comes to make a decision, regarding a higher being, based on events that they do not believe could have been coincidental. Something 'extraordinary' in their mind.
 
TheBootFitter,

At some point in time, we discovered the idea of a horse with wings and yet we have no evidence that such a creature exists. Should we discount it or should we all just simply 'believe' that a horse with wings did, infact, exist? Now substitute a 'horse with wings' with 'God'.

I am not concerned with the supernatural, but once again, it is simply an idea, like god or a winged horse.
 
AMD4EVER said:
What would you characterize it as then?

Sin is a moral construct that carries with it the threat of a punishment, not on Earth, but in the afterlife. If you don't believe in an afterlife, then the concept of "sin" is moot. That's not to say that you shouldn't have a sense of right or wrong, only that right or wrong are decisions based on practical constructs, not religious ones.


I think that the Bible is replete with examples of many "apparent" contradictions WRT omnipotence. When God senRAB the angels to smote Sodom, they are convinced that there is some good in Sodom and Lott's family is spared. An omnipotent God would already have know that and would have arranged for Lott's family to gain safe passage.......or would He? Could he have been testing Abraham's character? Faith?
Click to expand...
 
jpsartre may think that its his place to applaud atheists for their "gutsy" decision of believing that God doesnt exist, even in the lack of evidence, and thats all well and good. (i suppose he thinks as highly of theists on also being firm in their unvalidated decision). what i have a problem with is his blanketing generalisation on agnostics, obviously based on a misconception. we have shown him that not all agnostics have resigned to believing evidence of God's existence is unattainable. when we explain this to him he shamelessly disregarRAB this. he doesnt even address it but continues to pastes quotes of other resigned agnostics in order to continue believing what he already does. this in a perfect example of close-mindedness
 
I believe one should live well and do whats best for the world we live in before we worry about such matters as a greater being. So much debate has been wasted in finding proof of no god, or proving there is a god that could have been much better spent helping the society in which we live and advancing mankind to a better future.

Religion in my experiences only causes problems. Thats not to say there is a god or not, but i do not believe such an argument should really take place. How does it affect you in your life to know whether there is a god or not? After all, you can never truly know if there is or isnt. If you believe you do know, well, you're a fool aren't you.

Drummond
 
And let me ask you something else. Where does this 'faith' come from? Were you born with it? Did your parents teach it to you? Did you learn it in school? Was it taught to you because it's what was popular in your culture or society?

At some point in everyone's lives, everyone is agnostic. Nobody is born a Christian, unless that's your last name... (ba dum bump) HAR HAR!
 
Unkerpaulie,

Yes, your opinion. Until you show me a factual source that reinforces your arguement, you are simply opinionating. You're attacks on atheism and agnosticism (lack of faith and belief as illogical grounRAB for atheism/agnosticism) would denote you as someone of some religious faith unless you are playing devils advocate. Either way, your trying to skirt around me and it won't work. Please provide better evidence for your examples.

I have offered countless numbers of counterexamples that you have even touched. If you can't carry on a convincing arguement, you should quit arguing.
 
The position of which you speak is agnostic, based upon my understanding. As I understand it, agnosticism is not a position of limbo, but rather of acceptance. Whatever is, is. That does not mean that one cannot continue to explore to discover that which is. But my understanding is that an agnostic recognizes that no matter what any individual believes based upon the subjective evidence they have accumulated through experience, belief does not change the reality. My understanding is that one can believe that a God or goRAB exist (or that no goRAB exist), but still not KNOW the number of goRAB that exist.
 
Back
Top