aww, this thread was going so annoyingly well, do we have to end it? Anyway, I agree with pool on one thing though, being a gnostic-atheist is pretty hard considering "god" is one of the most ill-defined terms out there, and new twisted definitions can be made up easily as pool did in the thread, but then again those gnostic-atheists do form their position based on the evidence of the plethora of god concepts, which by the way is zero evidence, so they are not wrong. But I'd love to hear from someone who outright rejects the possibility of any and all gods, what their opinion on this is.

(July 4, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: But I'd love to hear from someone who outright rejects the possibility of any and all gods, what their opinion on this is.

In all of human history, nobody making any god claim has been able to demonstrate the object of their affection. We certainly don't know everything yet; however, our success rate at stripping back god's employment responsibilities suggests that what remains will be more of the same. Right now the most one could hope for would be Spinoza's god, but this isn't the type of god everyone is yammering about.

Keep in mind that absence of evidence is evidence of absence where there's a reasonable expectation that you find some based on the claims being made.

(July 4, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: aww, this thread was going so annoyingly well, do we have to end it? Anyway, I agree with pool on one thing though, being a gnostic-atheist is pretty hard considering "god" is one of the most ill-defined terms out there, and new twisted definitions can be made up easily as pool did in the thread, but then again those gnostic-atheists do form their position based on the evidence of the plethora of god concepts, which by the way is zero evidence, so they are not wrong. But I'd love to hear from someone who outright rejects the possibility of any and all gods, what their opinion on this is.

I knoowwwww right. Pretty fucking awesome. It was fun while it lasted. 
As of now i could care less if anyone believe in god or doesn't believe in god : no more energy to make people want to hit their head on a wall trying to debate with me Haha

(July 4, 2015 at 2:49 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 4, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: But I'd love to hear from someone who outright rejects the possibility of any and all gods, what their opinion on this is.

In all of human history, nobody making any god claim has been able to demonstrate the object of their affection. We certainly don't know everything yet; however, our success rate at stripping back god's employment responsibilities suggests that what remains will be more of the same. Right now the most one could hope for would be Spinoza's god, but this isn't the type of god everyone is yammering about.

Keep in mind that absence of evidence is evidence of absence where there's a reasonable expectation that you find some based on the claims being made.

yep right, but even then is it correct to reject any future possibility of existence of a god when the word "god" itself is not properly defined? What I mean is, some tribes in Africa worship the crocodile, and we can see those "gods" in our local zoo and hence they exist, at several places in Asia, people worship deities who when stripped of the supernatural aspects were real people once. Heck even prince Siddharta might have been a real person, and a spiritual leader, and people do worship him as the god Buddha.

So I believe agnostic-atheist is a more valid position at least till we can settle on a proper definition of "god".

(June 30, 2015 at 2:36 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 2:33 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Yes, we are gods.

Nuh uh, pretty sure I exist

I've seen no evidence outside some words on a screen.

(July 4, 2015 at 3:33 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 2:36 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Nuh uh, pretty sure I exist

I've seen no evidence outside some words on a screen.

Come here and say that to my invisible magic face!!

But what am I doing, you're just a figment of my imagination

(July 4, 2015 at 11:10 am)pool Wrote: I like to look at it like this: People who believe in religious gods are religious.

There are no other gods than religious ones despite your made up bullshit definition.

I have no -clue- what that question is supposed to mean.  The right to a thought?  Is that remotely enforcable one way or another, do rights protect thoughts or prohibit them?  Who would say that we don't, and who would know, and what could or would be done about it?

(July 4, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: aww, this thread was going so annoyingly well, do we have to end it? Anyway, I agree with pool on one thing though, being a gnostic-atheist is pretty hard considering "god" is one of the most ill-defined terms out there, and new twisted definitions can be made up easily as pool did in the thread, but then again those gnostic-atheists do form their position based on the evidence of the plethora of god concepts, which by the way is zero evidence, so they are not wrong. But I'd love to hear from someone who outright rejects the possibility of any and all gods, what their opinion on this is.

I think it's more proper to discard the claim as being generally nonsensical/ill defined, where appropriate. "Try again later." It usually has no failure criteria, but also no success criteria either due to the lack of a coherent definition. It depends on the specific claim, of course, and how much information is given. Omni-qualities are impossible to demonstrate I think, where given. And what separates a god from a super powered alien? Once you remove all the nonsense, I think the question is more like, "Was our reality created by an intelligent being?" That's the heart of it, and a question that perhaps could actually be possible to demonstrate someday. All these super powers only cloud the issue, and are just hero worship.

It's often claimed that there is one single God as well. So even if you managed to find and prove that God, whatever the hell it is, you'd then have to prove there were no others! The success criteria then includes the apparent impossibility of proving a negative.

Of course, if a more mundane definition of God is given, then it may actually be obvious it does exist, or at least possible it does exist. This is the problem with "Is there a god?" It doesn't tell you anything meaningful with which to answer the question. We need at least some coherent information. Or else the question becomes, "Is there anything which someone might consider a god?" Yes, everything.

(July 4, 2015 at 6:08 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(July 4, 2015 at 11:10 am)pool Wrote: I like to look at it like this: People who believe in religious gods are religious.

There are no other gods than religious ones despite your made up bullshit definition.

What about Prince Philip? : Some dudes workship him as a god.There isn't any religion assosiated with Prince Philip ......is there? : think not. 

@robvalue, I like the part where you replace "Is there a god?" with "Is there anything which someone consider a god?"
Would you agree if i said that it was a supernatural act of some being to create a reality for us?

To answer Magi, I think its impossible to outright reject the possibility of any and all gods unless and until a definition of a god is made up which is a general integration of all the gods currently present.But i do believe that it would be easier to outright reject the possibility of a Christian god(so that's good news)only because its a single god and a consistent definition of that god can be produced more easily.But god(s) in general? Hell no.
Even i couldn't provide with a definition everyone agrees on.Apparently a "A Supreme being,capable of performing supernatural feats." holds ground for most religious gods but it breaks down when it comes to other MESSED up gods like Prince Philip,*sigh* poor me.(Also there is a lot of confusion as to what supernatural is - that is,for others.Not for me,i can explain it if someone is willing to listen and is willing to be more open-minded.)

@Rhythm, lol you're so far behind it's funny.