God

[BonzaiJoe]

I know what are you doing BJ, but no, I'm not atheist. I understand that maybe it bothers you.

I regret I can't explain myself as well as in spanish.

Yes, it bothers me 

Anyway, here's the Wikipedia article on agnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I fully agree with Richard Dawkins' comment in section 4.2

[Duplode]

Not having concrete evidence does not mean something does not exist. On the other hand, having evidence doesn't prove something to be true either. Experiments can be biased or not completely accurate thus giving a wrong proof of something

Strictly speaking, nothing can be proven true. The best that can be done is to prove something is false, or failing to do so after trying hard. From such a perspective, the existence of God is an intractable problem - it cannot be proven false, as a transcendent regulator of the universe could always bend the rules.   

[alanrotoi]

Don't get mad bj, it's healthy the existence of different points of view.

[BonzaiJoe]

Don't get mad bj, it's healthy the existence of different points of view.

Okay, I promise I won't get mad.

I don't agree, though, that in a case like this it's healthy to have different points of view.
It's healthy to have educated and well considered views, whatever they are.
It is true that healthy, educated, well considered views may differ because we don't know everything and because people have different fundamental schools of thought.
However, in the case of the religion debate, I think a lot of people boast opinions that are simply illogical and - sorry to be blunt - stupid.
Not every opinion should be respected. If someone says the Earth is 6000 years old, this is a false statement, not an opinion. If another person says "the fact that a house must have a designer proves that a human must have had a designer", this is a false conclusion based on a false analogy - not a respectable opinion.
And so on.
I suspect that people who claim to be 'agnostics' are either trying to be nice to religious people or afraid to be ostracized by religious people if they denounce their beliefs.
This is my opinion, and you are welcome to discuss it.

[alanrotoi]

I won't discuss, I'm fine with your opinion, can you live with mine?

[Chulk]

Theist = God-like entity exist
Atheist = God-like entity does not exist
Agnostic = I don't know and I don't care.

I don't think being agnostic is hocus pocus. It's just simply that I don't care to think or discuss what I can't answer.

[BonzaiJoe]

Okay - but then you must also be agnostic about all other unfalsifiable claims like (see Russell's teapot, Loch Ness Monster, the tooth fairy etc.).

[BonzaiJoe]

I won't discuss, I'm fine with your opinion, can you live with mine?

Not really. My problem with your opinion is that it gives harmful religious ideas a free pass. Religion is being used to usurp science and education, and to suppress people (not just gays but women and basically everyone who feels he has to live by religious rules). For every
'agnostic' who shrugs his shoulders at this, the religious nutjobs have an easier time.
I'm not saying you can't be a religious person and be really good and honest, but against the many who dilute information, delude themselves, block research, prevent contraception and even kill in the name of religion, the least we can do is explain that it's just a myth and it should not be taken for truth.
I think the attitude 'I don't care' is honest enough, even if I personally find it weird. However, if you do care and you spend any amount of time thinking about it scientifically (same way you think about everything else), I'm not prepared to believe that you will end up with the conclusion that God is equally likely to exist as not to exist.

[alanrotoi]

Then I feel sorry for you.

[BonzaiJoe]

Then I feel sorry for you.

Why? Because I care about some problems in the world and it brings me down when people stay ignorant because it causes some of the problems? Well, yes, it can be burdensome sometimes. If you really feel sorry for me, you can help by thinking harder about religion.

In Europe in the 16th and 17th century, we had a tradition of burning witches at the stake. Women were singled out by the clergy and accused of being a witch and being the cause of whatever trouble the society was having. They would hold an unfair trial, led by a spiritual medium called a 'witchsmeller', and the woman would be burned to death.

Luckily, nobody's being burned anymore, but your opinion bothers me in the same way as someone who would stand by at a witch burning and say: "I have no opinion about whether witches exist and whether she really is a witch, and I don't care."

Now, I think I understand what's going on. I saw the pope on the television from Brazil and I understand the hope and the sense of community that he gives to a lot of catholics - some of the good things about religion.
You seem to have a different way of conducting religion in South America, and I understand if you don't want to be negative about that or take it away from people around you. In that case it only bothers me that you don't say that this is what it's about.

[CTG]

Then I feel sorry for you.

Why? Because I care about some problems in the world and it brings me down when people stay ignorant because it causes some of the problems? Well, yes, it can be burdensome sometimes. If you really feel sorry for me, you can help by thinking harder about religion.

First of all, I don't believe in the existence of god.

But as far as I see, you want to force your atheistic approach on Alan - which is actually the same (in methods) as converting people to any crappy religions. People should believe what they want to believe, without any outer pressure. Even if it's the uncertainity of god's existence.

[BonzaiJoe]

Then I feel sorry for you.

Why? Because I care about some problems in the world and it brings me down when people stay ignorant because it causes some of the problems? Well, yes, it can be burdensome sometimes. If you really feel sorry for me, you can help by thinking harder about religion.

First of all, I don't believe in the existence of god.

But as far as I see, you want to force your atheistic approach on Alan - which is actually the same (in methods) as converting people to any crappy religions. People should believe what they want to believe, without any outer pressure. Even if it's the uncertainity of god's existence.

I don't agree with you. If Rotoi said 'I have faith in God', that would be a completely different case. I might still want to discuss it with him, but then he would have openly taken an irrationalistic standpoint, which is an honest thing to do. However, he is claiming to live by science and reason, and at the same time taking an incoherent point of view and refusing to talk about it. You can say it's his problem, of course, but it bothers me because he's only one of many who does it, and it's not helping science and reason make their way in the world.

You, CTG, are also expounding the strange idea that the origin of the universe should not be openly discussed in the same way that we openly discuss everything else. There's absolutely nothing religious about me putting forward for discussion what I believe about the origin of the universe, because I am not asking anyone to have faith or to live by any dogma. You might as well accuse me of being a religious missionary if I try to open a discussion about why the World War I broke out or something like that.

[CTG]

I have no mood to enter a serious arguement in this topic - probably my English wouldn't be enough for that. I just can stand when somebody wants to force his thoughts on others. Not only in religious/atheistic bullshit, but even in politics, sport fanatism, whatever.

However, I envy those people believing in a greater power without any doubts. They have no fear of the eternal nothing after life - while we, "non-believers", are full of questions. Since it's unimaginable what "happens" after death (nothing, but what is nothing?), we are afraid of that.

[BonzaiJoe]

I have no mood to enter a serious arguement in this topic - probably my English wouldn't be enough for that. I just can stand when somebody wants to force his thoughts on others. Not only in religious/atheistic bullshit, but even in politics, sport fanatism, whatever.

However, I envy those people believing in a greater power without any doubts. They have no fear of the eternal nothing after life - while we, "non-believers", are full of questions. Since it's unimaginable what "happens" after death (nothing, but what is nothing?), we are afraid of that.

Okay. I don't think you should consider it only as a negative thing if someone tries to 'force' an opinion on someone else through logic and good arguments. It means he cares, and it means he is trying to make the world more educated - even if he's wrong or not succeeding.

I think religious people have plenty of fear of death, and as a non-believer, I really expect that nothing happens, and nothing is nothing. You don't exist, so you're not there to experience whatever it could be. It's strange to try and think about because when we think, we always refer to lived experiences.

[CTG]

It's strange to try and think about because when we think, we always refer to lived experiences.

The proof of our seriously limited mind.