Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not saying there is a higher power. I'm saying this is why I BELIEVE there is likely a higher power. And I'm aware we've jousted on this a few times in the past. But I'm repeating it for the benefit of people who have not read our exchanges previously so they can understand where I'm coming from, and I'll probably repeat it a dozen more times as the occasion calls for it and you're free to offer your dissents again on all dozen times so people know your position, or not. To sum, all I'm saying is that if you don't believe there is a higher power of some sort, you just have to not question how the planet overcame odds that cannot even be written down as a number to get us to the advanced state we are if you have no rational explanation to offer in place of mine. All you're saying now is "Science not being able to explain how we got here doesn't automatically lead to accepting that a higher intelligence did it." I agree. I do, but obviously not everyone else does. I merely offer my theory as a possible explanation and I try to demonstrate how impossible odds would make my theory a little more palatable than "How did we get here? I don't know."
I have sympathy for your opinion here. As an atheist, people assume I don't think there could be a god. No. There could be. I just see sufficient evidence to conclude that. I do think that if there is a god, he/she/it is not the christian god. Perhaps a deist god? It's not all black and white.
I'm not saying there is a higher power. I'm saying this is why I BELIEVE there is likely a higher power. And I'm aware we've jousted on this a few times in the past. But I'm repeating it for the benefit of people who have not read our exchanges previously so they can understand where I'm coming from, and I'll probably repeat it a dozen more times as the occasion calls for it and you're free to offer your dissents again on all dozen times so people know your position, or not. To sum, all I'm saying is that if you don't believe there is a higher power of some sort, you just have to not question how the planet overcame odds that cannot even be written down as a number to get us to the advanced state we are if you have no rational explanation to offer in place of mine. All you're saying now is "Science not being able to explain how we got here doesn't automatically lead to accepting that a higher intelligence did it." I agree. I do, but obviously not everyone else does. I merely offer my theory as a possible explanation and I try to demonstrate how impossible odds would make my theory a little more palatable than "How did we get here? I don't know."
yeah ... the data suggest we are part of a larger more complex system.
My beliefs are based on information being exchanged in "patterns". Where is that information coming from and how is it being processed.
The universe self organized in our location. To me.
Remember, some atheist have physical reactions to the word god. It doesn't matter what you are actually saying, they see it being used by theist making atheism harder to sell so we need to suppress it. So some of them say anyway ...
I have sympathy for your opinion here. As an atheist, people assume I don't think there could be a god. No. There could be. I just see sufficient evidence to conclude that. I do think that if there is a god, he/she/it is not the christian god. Perhaps a deist god? It's not all black and white.
As I understand the definitions, atheists don't say "There is no God", they say, "I believe there is no God." And agnostics say, "I'm not sure if there's a God or not; I'm pretty sure there isn't but I'm willing to entertain the possibility there is." The Christian god is such a repulsive and incompetent character that I'm also convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that if there is a God it is definitely NOT the Christian god.
As I understand the definitions, atheists don't say "There is no God", they say, "I believe there is no God." And agnostics say, "I'm not sure if there's a God or not; I'm pretty sure there isn't but I'm willing to entertain the possibility there is." The Christian god is such a repulsive and incompetent character that I'm also convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that if there is a God it is definitely NOT the Christian god.
Yes.
By the way, in my post I mistyped and should have said "I just don't see sufficient evidence to conclude that."
As I understand the definitions, atheists don't say "There is no God", they say, "I believe there is no God." And agnostics say, "I'm not sure if there's a God or not; I'm pretty sure there isn't but I'm willing to entertain the possibility there is." The Christian god is such a repulsive and incompetent character that I'm also convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that if there is a God it is definitely NOT the Christian god.
While "There is no god" is actually a perfectly valid semantic shortcut, it is exploited by theists demanding that claim be proven. Gods inherently can be neither proven nor disproven as they cannot be examined, given that they are supernatural. So I do not believe there are any gods, because I have yet to see any valid evidence that there is.
Some self-labeled agnostics are, like political independents, perpetually indecisive. But the term and the concept were proposed by Huxley, who would, I think, turn over in his grave to see agnosticism thusly defined. Just as atheism is a belief position (I have no belief), agnosticism is a knowledge position (I have no way to know). They influence each other, but vary independently. So I lack both belief, and a means to know, whether there's a god.
As such, I'm an agnostic atheist. After all, if you can't obtain knowledge of a thing, it's quite hard to form a belief about it, no?
As I understand the definitions, atheists don't say "There is no God", they say, "I believe there is no God." And agnostics say, "I'm not sure if there's a God or not; I'm pretty sure there isn't but I'm willing to entertain the possibility there is." The Christian god is such a repulsive and incompetent character that I'm also convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that if there is a God it is definitely NOT the Christian god.
There is some thing more. It aint a deity.
Keep up the good fight ... the science clearly points to believing in some thing more. Like you say, its not "that".
God bears full responsibility for how screwed up the world is.
Do you really think so? Our lives are what we make them (after you factor in randomness and that which is out of our control). Hence acceptance (and accountability) plays a big role, whether you believe in a god or not. Perhaps it is because I do not, it is far easier (for me) to accept such vs. blame (which is a toxic way of thinking/dealing).
While "There is no god" is actually a perfectly valid semantic shortcut, it is exploited by theists demanding that claim be proven. Gods inherently can be neither proven nor disproven as they cannot be examined, given that they are supernatural. So I do not believe there are any gods, because I have yet to see any valid evidence that there is.
Some self-labeled agnostics are, like political independents, perpetually indecisive. But the term and the concept were proposed by Huxley, who would, I think, turn over in his grave to see agnosticism thusly defined. Just as atheism is a belief position (I have no belief), agnosticism is a knowledge position (I have no way to know). They influence each other, but vary independently. So I lack both belief, and a means to know, whether there's a god.
As such, I'm an agnostic atheist. After all, if you can't obtain knowledge of a thing, it's quite hard to form a belief about it, no?
I actually think that illogical hypotheses don't even need to be subjected to an evidentiary test. Logical consistency is the first hurdle, then evidence.
Do you really think so? Our lives are what we make them (after you factor in randomness and that which is out of our control). Hence acceptance (and accountability) plays a big role, whether you believe in a god or not. Perhaps it is because I do not, it is far easier (for me) to accept such vs. blame (which is a toxic way of thinking/dealing).
"God bears responsibility ..."
Its like saying "You" bear responsibility for getting cancer.
I actually think that illogical hypotheses don't even need to be subjected to an evidentiary test. Logical consistency is the first hurdle, then evidence.
the problem is who determines "consistency"? For example, love is one of the most selfish emptions I know. People will hurt an unlimited number of people to satisfy their "love". And think its beautiful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
