Interesting Story

[Edwardo Piet]

Seriously though...why should I go challenging my belief in God specifically and give HIM special treatment when I've got the FSM, Zeus, Santa Claus and much much MUCH more to deal with too??? theres....no...fuck-ing....time! There just isn't! There's a near infinite number of undisprovable bullshit out there to get evidence for! Why treat God any different?

Evidence for Zeus, FSM, Father Christmas, the IPU, the Tooth Fairy (and on and on and on and on and ON - and so on) ZERO

Evidence for "God": ZERO.

Why should I give "God" special treatment? I've got all the other shit to deal with too!!

Theres....just....no....FUCK-ing.....time!!

EvF

[fr0d0]

I don't say challenge your own belief in God. Presumably you challenge your own ideas and progress. That's more what I'm promoting. Similarly I could say the same about any non belief of mine, but then I might be accused of not considering other possibilities...

[Edwardo Piet]

I just don't understand why you believe in the first place. You obviously have your OWN reasons BUT....

As stated before:

How can you have valid reasons to have FAITH in God which is WITHOUT evidence...

...When if you DID have VALID reasons to have faith that God exists then if those reasons WERE valid then they WOULD count as evidence so it wouldn't be faith???(because faith is without evidence)

Are you gonna reply with anything other than "Fuk! LMAO" this time fr0d0? Lol. An actual argument back perhaps?

[ghostlighter]

ADRIAN,

You make an interesting point about gnostic atheism involving faith. Yes, perhaps, in some degrees a gnostic atheist has "faith", but do you remember the old evangelist's argument "you have faith that the sun comes up every morning dont you?" Well, no because I SEE the sun. It happens quite regularly that the sun beams up over the eastern horizon, passes over the sky and sinks into the western landscapes. This is not faith, this is observation. And when I awake each day into this world and look, each and every day I see that God is not at work here. There is something way deeper and way more amazing at work here. It is wild and unrestricted and its spirit is unbridled and present in the forces of nature and alive in the swirling galxies of the cosmos, a great furnace burning hot into the icy spans of space-time. To call this force God (a mere figure of human conception, or rather MISconception) would not do it justice. I know your comment wasn't aimed at me but I just couldn't help chiming in. All that being said I'm still a bit agnostic myself. I keep an open mind but it's kind of like saying well I know that Santa Claus doesn't exist but maybe there is some OTHER kind of elf-like rosy-cheeked being in arctic who dispenses presents but we just can't be sure if he exists or not.

[Edwardo Piet]

How do you ABSOLUTELY know Santa Claus doesn't exist? I know the whole thing is totally absurd and there is no evidence of him whatsoever so he's extremely improbable...but complete absence of evidence of his total absurdity still doesn't DISPROVE him...

That is a logical fallacy. You cannot absolutely prove that something doesn't exist.

He could just be hiding from us all its not VERY likely is it (to say the least LOL) but it still isn't disproved.

You can't prove a negative. That is a logical fallacy.

EvF

[ghostlighter]

Well okay EvF, It does take some faith to be Gnostic Atheist, but lets face it, it doesn't take that much. And just because faith (though I am loathe to call it that) is at work in some of my discernments, that does not immediatly disqualify them. Just because faith is the main weapon in our enemy's nuclear aresenal of idiocy doesn't mean that it is not a trusty side-arm for we atheists in our platoon of truth-seeking. So, yes, we will never know FOR SURE if there is a God or not so lets go with the 99.9% probabilty that no God exists and be done with it. If the ancients had not, in their ignorance, come up with the idea of God in the first place we would not be discussing it today.

[leo-rcc]

So, yes, we will never know FOR SURE if there is a God or not so lets go with the 99.9% probabilty that no God exists and be done with it. If the ancients had not, in their ignorance, come up with the idea of God in the first place we would not be discussing it today.

I completely agree with that statement.

[Edwardo Piet]

It makes no real practical difference. It is simply that on principle I know that God ISN'T disproved so I am agnostic. To actually believe he is would take some faith and I cannot do that because I know it's illogical because God ISN'T disproved.

I know of no evidence for God and he is SO extremely improbable that in practical terms it makes no real difference to if he WAS disproved...

But it is simply that on principle I know he ISN'T disproved so I can't help being agnostic.

I also care about the truth on principle (and I find it VERY interesting too) even when the truth being one way rather another makes no practical difference and has no practical application whatsoever. I just care about the truth for it's own sake too. I find it interesting and profound in and of itself.

And besides, what if you don't care about a truth because you believe it has no practical application so you'd rather believe otherwise - but you discover afterwards that it DOES have a practical application and DOES make a practical difference despite the fact you thought otherwise - and you'd have been better off simply caring about the truth on principle in the first place and not just for practical reasons.

So, yes, we will never know FOR SURE if there is a God or not so lets go with the 99.9% probabilty that no God exists and be done with it. If the ancients had not, in their ignorance, come up with the idea of God in the first place we would not be discussing it today.

I completely agree with that statement.

I do too. The only problem I have is that it seems to conflict (at least a bit) with what he said in the rest of that post (before it).

He says that being a Gnostic atheist doesn't take THAT much faith (which I agree with) but he said that how he does have faith in SOME of his discernments (which i assume he is referring to Gnostic atheism on his part?).

So the conflict I see is that he says that we can never know FOR SURE that there is no God but then he also seems to claim that he knows God doesn't exist and admits that takes a little faith but that is insignificant. But you can't both be a GNOSTIC atheist and think that you cannot know God doesn't exist 'FOR SURE.' If you accept that you cannot Know that God doesn't exist 'FOR SURE' then you are agnostic on the matter, not Gnostic. Because Gnostic atheist's DO claim to know absolutely 'FOR SURE'.

Maybe he's agnostic on the matter of whether he's agnostic or gnostic?

Ok tho, which is it Ghost? If you don't mind me asking?

EvF

[ghostlighter]

The reason I came to the conclusion that no God or God-like being exists is the same reason that I don't believe in a Santa Claus or Claus-like entity. It is absurd and I find it more honest and profitable to assume the probable. I mean, someone could say that the universe was created by giant invisible elephants and you couldn't disprove it. As for atheist or agnostic? None of the Above. Didn't you read my header?

[Edwardo Piet]

I thought that might have meant you didn't believe in any God's (of the above - as if there's a huge list of God's above you).

Do you believe in any God's at all? If not then you're an atheist by definition right? Whether you use the LABEL or not.

Are you absolutely certain God doesn't exist? In which case (assuming you don't believe in God and are an atheist by definition therefore as I said) - then in that case you are a Gnostic Atheist. And if you're NOT absolutely certain or uncertain to any degree (but still disbelieve in God) then you're an Agnostic Atheist.

BUT - whatever you are by definition, you certainly still don't HAVE TO use the labels of course.

I myself love them...but it's entirely your choice of course.

EvF