Belief, in itself, means nothing. If I have faith that a chair will hold me up, and it breaks when I sit on, I can't say "Well, I must not have had enough faith." Faith without works is dead. (Or in this case, faith without a working chair is painful.)

Lots of people believe in the Christian God. That doesn't mean they all like Him, and it certainly doesn't mean they're all Christian.

Like I said: only one religion offers genuine salvation. Other religions will preach forgiveness, but forgiveness in itself does nothing. It's a line of thought. If I let a friend borrow my car, and he wrecks it, I can, of course, forgive him. But my forgiveness doesn't repair the damage to my car, nor does the regret and sincere apologies of my friend. It takes action for these kinds of things, not pretty words. Same thing goes for love. People toss the phrase around all the time, but unless you show love by what you do, it's nothing more than words.

I'm a skepticist/athiest/agnostic.

Basically, I'm different, and won't believe that god exists or doesn't exist without proof. But I'm willing to jump on the theory that he doesn't just to mix things up.

"...Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistance of God.
"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'For proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.'
"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
"'Oh, that was too easy,' says Man, and goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing."

I win.

You win by a parable? I think not.

Wtf is a parable?

My excerpt does not fit the definition or a parable. Kthx.

it seems to, atleast for me

Oh, so the babel fish is real. Kthx.

just what the hell is this babel fish?

Go read Hitchhikers Guide the Galaxy.
Even if you don't enjoy reading, I think you will have a hard time not enjoying these books in particular. If anything, just read the first one (With that title) there are others, very good as well.

by dodlagas adams correct? yeah ive already read em.

Ok.. I was trying to avoid going all matrixy on you, but now you're just asking for it! :p

It's all about choice. It's not the fact that I have sins or not, it's that I can choose to have sin. Everybody else rejects it, while I accept it...



...THEREFORE, your individuality is based on the choices you make. Why should I love god? Maybe I don't want to. Why should I want to stay at his place for the rest of ethernity? Why should I even bow down to him, if I see him as being very flawed and imperfect? It's also the fact that I dare to question his power that makes me who I am.



The thing is, grease doesn't affect your emotions, experiences, and the way you think 24 hours a day.

Ah, you might have forgotten it, but there was a part where Ford put a Babel fish in Dent's (Can't think of his first name ><) ear. It makes you understand any language.

Arthur

and also - Douglas

The Flextrix has me!

I accept it, too. But that doesn't mean I embrace it, the way you do. We all make choices, good and bad. We cannot embrace our wrongdoing and look back on it to learn at the same time.
I accept that I sin. When I do wrong, I get up, brush the dust off, and move on with my life.

So how do you define individuality in perfection?
Being cleansed of sin only removes sin. It doesn't take away your individuality. It doesn't take away your past.
Compare these two things: How quickly people define you both by the good you do and the bad you do. Which bears more weight?

No, but it affects who wants to be around you. Let me expand my previous statement and lets say you never bathe again. Who wants to be around someone unclean? (especially if they smell) :p

This is a damned good question, and the only reply is, "We make a choice and live with it."

That doesn't make any sense to me. You realize that if you make a choice, with all the religions in the world, the chance of you choosing the correct one is one in a million. This is assuming, of course, that "the correct" religion exists. To me, the question that Thrawn poses is enough to keep me out of the religion game. The mere fact that there are endless numbers of religions indicates that the vast majority of religion is a fraud. Why would I make a decision against all odds? If god loved his people he would make himself known to them.

Dogsrool, before you post your fatih spiel, don't. I've read it before. I've even believed it myself at one time. Faith in what? Faith in whom? Allah? Jehovah? Satan? Vishnu? Mother Earth? Making a decision is not logical when there is no evidence that any particular religion is the correct one.

As for my beliefs? I tried to be a deist, at first, I really did. However, I found their belief that it is possible to use reason and logic to prove god's existance to be a tad arrogant. I can honestly see myself drifting toward atheism in the distant future. The burden of proof is on god's extistance, not the lack thereof, so the agnostic argument doesn't sit right with me. You can't just say, "I don't believe you can prove or disprove god's existance." That makes no sense. Either he exists, or he doesn't. The burden of proof is on his existance, not on his lack of existance, which is why I agree wholly with Mort-Hog.

So actually, I fit into Mort-Hog's definition of agnosticism, but not most peoples' definitions of it. To me, agnosticism means you don't believe in god, period. Atheists believe they can prove the non-existance of god. I simply don't believe in him; I certainly don't think I can prove the non-existance of god, which is what makes me "agnostic." However, this agnostic strongly believes in PARTS of what various great philosophers have said, including Jesus. I have adopted a small, leightweight creed that guides my morality, which includes Jesus' sermon on the mount, parts of secular humanism, and I have strongly adopted moral relativism, which aids in setting my own moral guidelines. Organized religion is too bloated to be effective; it also contains too much dogma. I am through with organized relgion. I am very much in favor of a small creed to guide my morals and as Thomas Paine said, my mind is my church.

You made a choice, and now you live with it. You simply said what I said in more words. How do you know your path is the correct one? How do you know for certain? You don't, nor do I -- we simply make a choice and live with it.

Well, I sat here for about ten minutes trying to come up with a response, Wolfy. Came up with two or three, and couldn't hit reply because honestly there's nothing I can say to refute your argument. You are absolutely right. And it's actually refreshing to have someone refer to my decision as a choice rather than non-belief/apostacy/hellfire-and-brimstone.

Agnosticism isn't the belief that god doesn't exist. Not by default, not at all. The belief that god doesn't exist is atheism. The fact that agnostics don't believe god doesn't exist is what makes it different from atheism.

And what "faith spiel" is that? The one where I admitted I can't prove that God exists?

God forbid I should follow logic and reason, even when it's against me.

The one from another thread, weeks ago.

And Flirb, that's a double negative, which collapses into, "don't believe in god."

Which one? I think I used a few double negatives...

[edit]

Okay, I reread what I wrote, and it looks like I just used roughly the same double negative twice. I don't see how they collapse into that, but it's true that agnostics don't believe in god, and as we've established already, that's not the same thing as believing god doesn't exist.

That's up to the creator(s) to decide, is it not? You shouldn't assume that the creator(s) do things based on what you feel they should do. Maybe life is a test/game, and the creator(s) want you to find them on your own. I could come up with a dozen or so reasons such as this.

Freelancer seems more like an Agnostic that doesn't know whether or not the creator(s) truly exist, he simply believes that it's more likely that they don't. That would still make him Agnostic, and would still correlate with Flirbnic's posts.

I still fail to see how anyone can disagree with Flirbnic on Agnosticism. It's pretty straight-forward.

It's just a semantic game. I personally feel the "It's impossible to know whether god exists" definition is the best. Still, Mentat, if it comes to that, I'll go Flexor on you. Who's to say I want to worship a god that treats us like lab rats?

Sadly, it's quite possible that the creator(s) don't care about such feelings and/or decisions. I'm no Christian, but I try to live my life according to how I think the creator(s) would want me to live. The truth is, I base most of this on my own views, which I believe is similar to what you're doing, but I may never know if it's all in vain. I've accepted this, and have decided to continue trying to do what I think is right. For me, this is the only logical choice.

for the part of morals and so forth, i personaly follow my own moral standard, and i admit i do borrow some of the rules from chrisitians and other religion but like freelacer said, my own mind is my own church.

i generaly believe i'm an good person althought i do have an temper problem occasionaly. and others but i do try to be a good persom *shungs* and just because i don't believe in X god means i'm going to go to hell? i strongly disagrees with that. which is why i sort of drifted away from most religion because of the whole thing about you must believe in our god or you'll go to hell thing.

Yes, I never said that agnostics believe God doesn't exist, I always said that agnostics don't believe that God exists.

But the possibility of God/gods exist.

Okay, well, I kind of promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in another one of these online religious debates again, but I couldn't resist just adding my two cents with this one.

Firstly, I disagree with Mort when he says that an agnostic doesn't believe that God exists, though I do see where he;s coming from. I think it is possible for a person to be purely undecided - neither believe in God, nor disbelieve in God.

Surely an Agnostic doesn't know whether they believe in God or not - that doesn't neccesarily mean that they don't believe in Him, though it is a possibility.

The agnostic might say "I don't NOT believe in God because I don't know whether there is a God to not believe in first. I haven't made my mind up yet, which technically means that I don't believe in God as I don't not believe in God, but untechnically I may not believe in God or I may not. I don't have a straight answer... yet"

An example of not having a straight answer is the following paradox (stolen from The Philosophy Gym):

A travellor was walking one day when he met an old man sitting beside the road smoking a pipe.

"The first thing said to you by the first person you meet today will not be true", said the old man "trust me - don't believe in what he says!"

"OK" said the traveller "But hang on a minute: you're the first person I've met today!"

"Exactly!" said the old man.

If the old man speaks the truth, then the first thing he says is not true. But if the first thing he says is not true, then the first thing he says is true.

The travellor thought he saw a way out of the paradox: claim that what the old man said is neither true nor not true (like saying that an agnostic neither believs in God nor disbelieves in God).

"Old man, you're trying to trick me" said the traveller "It's obvious that what you said is neither true nor not true"

"Aha", said the old man "You're suggesting that it is not true what I said is true, and also not true what I said is not true?"

"That's exactly right", said the traveller.

"Well then, if it's not true what I said is true, then what I said IS true! And if it's not true that what I said is not true, then what I said IS true! For what I said is precisely that what I said is not true! So you see, your suggestion is wrong: it's not true that what I said is neither true nor not true. In fact, it's both true and not true!"

So basically an agnostic CAN neither believe nor disbelieve in God, because they *don't know*, just as that man CAN be neither telling the truth not not telling the truth.

====

In addition I don't think it's lazy to say you simply "don't know" whether God exists or not. In fact, it's rather clever seeing as we can't possibly know in this life whether God does exist or not, so really, the agnostic is the only one who can be 100% sure in the position of not knowing! It's like what Socrates said - the first step to true knowledge is accepting that you know nothing.

Sorry for the long post, and I hope it all made sense to you (if it didn't then it's probably my fault).

If you don't believe something, it doesn't necessarily mean you disbelieve it, no, but you still don't believe it. You have non-belief. That is what agnostics have.

To be a theist, to believe in God, you must say "God exists.".
An agnostic is not saying that - they are not saying "God exists", therefor they do not believe in God.



Also, I totally didn't understand your dialogue thing. :-( Is the old man lying about him lying, so the old man is not the first person the other man has met that day? what? :-(
I think I need these sorts of things in cartoon form. with dinosaurs.

Well, yeah, I guess you're technically right about an Agnostic not beleiving in God. Or are you!? I think this is probably another case of people getting mixed up with language; a lot of the Philosophy of religion creates many headaches due to words being used in different ways etc. You might even say that our language is inadequate to talk about God in the first place, but that's a different discussion entirely.

Is it neccesary, though, for an agnostic to not believe in God simply because they don't say he exists? I think we might me using two different uses of the word "belief". If an Agnostic doesn't believe in God it suggests that they disbelieve in God, but you've said that that's not what you're saying.

So to avoid confusion maybe we should say that "an Agnostic does not hold belief in God at the moment", instead of "An Agnostic does not believe in God", though technically both statements are true... just that the latter can very easily be misinterpreted.

It depends which of the following statements you see as true:

* An Agnostic neither believes in God nor not believes in God (which means that they do not not believe in God)

* An Agnostic does not believe in God and does not not believe in God (which means that they do not believe in God)

The answer, probably, is that the Agnostic both believes in God and does not believe in God - but that's an obvious condradiction, which is why I say that the Agnostic neither believes in God nor does not believe in God - so you can't say that the Agnostic doesn't believe in God. (Just as you can't say that the old man is telling the truth or not telling the truth)

Er, I started out agreeing with you and then ended up in not agreeing with you. This is why I dislike Internet discussions like this; I keep on changing my mind and I can't convince anyone that what I'm saying is right.

I tend towards the second one, although instead of "does not not believe in God" I say "does not disbelieve in God". (It's still technically a double negative, but it's a slightly less obnoxious one)
Noting that there is an important difference between not believing and disbelieving, as that is the fundemental difference between an agnostic and an atheist.

My head 'asplodes.

Yeah, my head is exploding too.

But Mort - I'm not sure you can lean to one of those statements more than the other. Surely they're both as true as each other? And if that's the case, then you have a logical condradiction with saying that an Agnostic does not believe in God (see previous post).

Not exactly..



This statement merely reinforces the fact that agnostics do not disbelieve the existance of God, and implies that they do not believe in God - whereas the other statement reinforces the fact that agnostics do not believe in the existance of God, and implies that they do not disbelieve in God.
They're the same thing, just with the emphasis on something else.

I think the biggest question is, besides for the fact that debating is fun, who cares?

You are here. You will die sometime and not be here.
Make the best of it while you're alive, here on Earth.

"Believe" is a verb. If your not doing it, it means you're not believing. All verbs work this way. It's not a big mystery.

The difference isn't what an atheist and agnostic believes, but why the believe it. Atheism is simply disbelief. It's not based on anything, anymore than another person's belief is. An agnostic doesn't believe because of lack of proof.


I'm still not sure what you mean. I don't remember saying anything that would've been so offensive. I gave up the whole conversion-oriented arguments a long long time ago.

It wasn't offensive in the slightest. I'm just tired of hearing it all the time from my family and stuff. That's why I said don't post it. I wasn't trying to be rude.

Your post grabbed my attention, Freelancer, and I feel like I want to say a few things.



Is faith logical? As far as I can tell, the only kind of faith that could be logical is belief in mathematical probability.

Don't limit yourself to logic. It's easy to only believe what is logical. Faith isn't always easy; faith is constantly tested and challenged. You have to work at it. As DogSRoOL said, and as it says in James 2:17, "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. "



Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

Here's how I feel about it: I don't think you can use the reason and logic of this world to convince others that God exists. You can't prove it with science or philosophy of this world. But if you come to see personal evidence of God's existance, and His working in your life, or other people's lives around you, then you will have proof of His existance. You can't show someone else a record of that evidence that will prove God's existance to that person. But that's not how faith in God works, either.



I believe that He has. I believe that the Bible is the unfailing word of God. If you don't believe in the Bible, then how could you believe that God had made himself known?



What about the first-century church? Churches that are centrally-organized and centrally-controlled by people on this earth is not what the Lord intended. As the Bible says, Jesus is the head, and the church is His body.

I have a feeling we're making this more complicated than it really is. Let's look at your Agnostic in a simply way, then:

"An Agnostic doesn't believe in God."

And...

"An Agnostic does not disbelieve in God"

I think the second one is right, but I still don't like the first one. You're technically right, an Agnostic doesn't believe in God, but... it's the way you say it that gets me. "An Agnostic doesn't believe in God" suggests that they've made up their mind and rejects the idea of God, whilst really they just don't know. By not knowing, what they're DOING is not believing in God, true, but what they're KNOWING is not not believing in God. So here we have two forms of belief - DOING belief and KNOWING belief.