WAIT A MINUTE NOW I GET IT! YOU DON'T LIKE ME!

Fuck you.

I have to admit you make a valid and pretty solid point.

I think what STM means is when you prey, although you may or may not get help from god, you still need to do something yourself. In my train ticket example I still had to ask the garbage collector if she had scooped up any tickets.

regardless of wheather god does or doesn't exist, the belief that we have gods help after praying lowers the amount of panic and/or fear we have, allowing us to think a bit more clearly and thus is still helpful even if we are wrong and god is nonexistant

Well that I can understand - praying can be a powerful motivation for people with faith, regardless of the existence or non-existence of a God.

The important thing is that people get out there and do things for themselves, rather than just praying and hoping God does all the work for them.

Oh I see what you mean. If you pray and what you pray for happens you can safely convince yourself that it was an act of god.

Dear god, please let this coin land heads. No, that's tails. Allah? Nope still tails. Yahweh? Yes, it landed heads! Obviously such a thing could only happen as a result of divine intervention.

Brb cutting off foreskin.

This is true, people who sit around praying for money for example instead of working need to get busy and stop being lazy.

Whyyyyyyyy do cool threads always appear while I'm away?

And I'm still not properly back yet.

We've had 14 pages of BM free bliss, now time for long words and difficult to understand adjectives to tell us why everyone here is wrong.

He can't tell me I'm wrong without contradicting himself, because... BM is right.

Time to switch stances from 'Moderate Agnostic' to 'True Neutral' again.

I could readily turn on the agnostics too.

Please do.

Right now.

Alcar...

Yey BM's here to fuck shit up! Someone put a topic forward.

I have been quite scathing of self-professed agnostics in the past. I don't know, believe nor hope that Wings fits quite into the categories I lay out here, but a lot of people do, and it grinds my gears.

Firstly: they don't know what the word means. They think it sits neatly between atheism and theism, when in fact it isn't even on the same scale. They also believe that when faced with two opposing viewpoints, the stance perfectly between them is the one most enlightened and closest to the truth, or otherwise the best to hold pending additional information. This is rarely the case.

In fact, atheism and agnosticism are two answers to two different questions. Agnosticism and gnosticism (the intellectual stance, not the slightly mystic religious order) answer the question "do you know whether there is/are god/gods?" or "is it possible to know whether there is/are god/gods?". This is entirely different from the question that atheism and theism are answers to: "Do you believe that there is/are god/gods?". As such, almost all agnostics are atheists and almost all atheists are (at least technically) agnostics. Self-described agnostics often dislike labelling themselves as atheists partly because of the previously explained misconception, but also because of the weird and undeserved social stigma of atheism, and at worst because they like to feel superior to both theists and atheists, and have found a way.

There is one small group of people who, when the above is explained, insist that they actually are between theism and atheism in answer to the belief question. Who whom I can only say, this issue is boolean. You either believe in one or more gods or you don't. To sit between these points is to not know what your beliefs are, that is to say, to not know your own mind. I have no interest in the opinions of, nor discussion with, people who don't even know their own minds, and there is no respect to be had for those who permit themselves to remain in such a state.

I'm happy because I understood all of that.

Also, agnostics are dumb because I'm like pick a side or GTFO

I don't see the problem with Agnostics, to fail to understand whether there is or isn't a god seems to me to make sense since unless he reveals himself, we will never be certain. Unless you are of so powerful faith you are without doubt. I try to put myself into this category but my resolve is ever faltering and strengthening so it's hard to tell.

I personally believe there to be no God, because as a scientist I must accept the nul hypothesis unless disproven. Though as a philosopher the question of belief doesn't interest me at all compared to the question of existence. Which is why I label myself an agnostic.

Well that in itself is paradoxical, you cannot be an agnostic and 'not believe in god' that isn't possible, you are an atheist.

To believe isn't the same thing as to know.

Beliefs are transiet, true knowledge is solid.

As much as you veil yourself beneath such labels, you're essentially picking and choosing.

I must ask - is it the scientist or the philosopher in you that is winning out?

Alcar...

I'm rooting for the scientist, who is slightly less pretentious. Though I don't see why there should need to be a conflict at all.

I wonder, if religion wasn't so opposed to scientific explanation and eventual prevalence as is natural in a developing species, the two could co-exist, why not allow a philosopher and scientist to work together on both parts?

The scientist. I have an anthology on the philosophy of religion and the conclusion is a rather glorified 'We don't know'.

The point is that if God exists we will never* learn of His existence a posteori, we will never find empirical evidence suggesting us to believe there is a God that stands up to any degree of scientific enquiry. The existence of God is a case of knowledge and not belief. He can only be logicially a priori be proven to exist if exist at all. By the same token we can not disprove His existence with the same level of philosophical rigour. God's existence is beyond us and it might forever be.

*I will eat my hat if proven wrong

So why debate?

I prefer "God as a concept is woefully inadequate for the purposes and thus not worth consideration until his prophets get their act together". There's no more reason to get hung up on god specifically than there is for unicorns. Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the point of which was lost on everyone who needed to get it the most.

In answer to STM: because it's fun, and I enjoy myself immensely, no matter how righteously indignant I sound.

YES

Also it's fucking rep central in this bitch.

Rep-central, I lost almost 100 rep last time, but I'm doing ok in this one, I lost more bollocking the US flag haha!

@BM - not gonna lie it is true.

When, where and why did you lose a load of rep for calling the Stars 'n' Stripes shit?

Just a shame we always pick religion or sexuality to debate about.

I like how people get neg-repped for trying to defend their point of view.

I like how this forum cares so much about rep that it defines their arguments.

I have and would never neg-rep someone for disagreeing with me, especially since that's where I get my jollies. Perhaps I'm nothing but a contrarian? I hope not.

Wings: I understand the desire to railroad a particular discussion onto the variation of the topic that it really should be, having attempted it many times on multiple subjects myself. But in his case I think you're trying to shift it the wrong way. Getting everyone to agree that we don't know and that that's what we should be talking about kills the discussion, there's no material to work with. But with beliefs there's an actual target. "What do you believe and why" is the question(s) that spark these discussions and give us something to actually talk about. What we know comes in at the "why" part (if ever, and is the part that STM so graciously complemented me on earlier in this thread), not at the "what" part.

Beliefs are transient, yes, and that's what makes them fun to talk about. They might change, or be changed for us. And they provide an actual goddamn discussion.