$100 dollars to anyone who can satisfactorily prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods.

the onus is on proving god(s) exsist

science has shown no credible evidence of the supernatural

Oh my God, remember the Ace threads on this subject? (pun intended)

For all we know this reality isn't even real.
Believe what you want to believe.
The only thing I have a problem with on the subject is trying to bend others to your will and what you believe or trying to interject this shit into political life, affecting people who dont' believe what you believe.

Leave people be, and let freedom ring: for all people, regardless of who they are or what they believe.

However, the opposite is just as true.

Science relies on rational thought and logic to reveal reality. What is to say that there there are elements of reality that cannot be comprehened or percieved by use of rational thought or logic?

Lack of evidence is hardly proof of lack of existence. I think that most of us presume that there is something out there in the universe (planets, stars, nebulae, etc.) beyond the barrier of our perception.

I don't think that the onus is on either one in particular. It's not as though there is a concensus of intelligent persons on this point.

My hunt for a support group/forum where questioning believers/friendly agnostics could get together and respectfully talk about these things continues.

Every so-called agnostic group I've found online (either on meetup.com or through a college) looks like it's been overrun by hardline athiests who aren't interested in real discussion so much as just proving others wrong.

Welcome, friend!

It's extremely difficult to find people who want to talk reasonably in the middle ground on this issue. Not everyone who believes in a higher power is a fundamentalist nutjob. Some of us couldn't give a damn about dogma, etc.

Really, it doens't have to get political. Really, it shouldn't.

Einstien believed in God

Yes, he certainly did (after a breif stint as an atheist).

Aero, not to be a dick, but why did we need two threads for this?

I need a new word to describe my beliefs.

I don't really believe in God, but I'm not hardline about it. I think there's no way we'll get proof one way or another, so my belief basically comes down to: "It doesn't matter if there's a God or not, so why are we even talking about it".

Apathgnostic?

I kind of like this new view. I'll add: why would God punish you for not believing in Him in a world like this one?

Which is the other one?

Works for me.

Russell's Celestial Teapot to thread.

You expected to find earnest, civil discussion on the internet? Has the SOMB taught you nothing?

Yeah I know, but I still like to think that somewhere in a city of 3+million people (metro area of 10 million?) that there's at least one room somewhere where people my age gather to sip tea and vent their anxieties about the unknowable without casting judgement on one another.

Actually, that's a terrible idea for a group, the more I think about it.

Secular humanists represent, y'all.

Respect.

Not so much. I pretty much get the above from an Agnostic/Atheistic Alcoholics Anonymous meeting I attend on Tuesday nights. The topic is never about drinking and always about faith or lack thereof. No judgment cast.

wouldn't that be, i dunno...impossible


i'm pretty much the same. i have no reason to believe that there's a god but there's no reason i shouldn't hope that there is either. so i try to lead a good life and whatever happens happens. no use dwelling on it

but if there is a god she's got some explaining to do

I believe in God, I don't see any reason not to. It's pretty ridiculous to claim that an omnipotent being is impossible, when we've barely even figured out how shit goes down on our own planet, let alone existence in its entirety. Any 'proof' that people might be looking for is futile, considering every major religion operates on faith. Lack of proof doesn't prove or disprove anything.

like I said, as far as organized religion goes, 'lack of proof' is completely irrelevant, seeing as it would negate the concept of blind faith. If there's a Christian/Catholic/Jewish/Islamic/etc. God, then there will never be any proof of its existence.

Fine, but the lack of proof is certainly a good reason not to believe in a god, don't you think?

As good a reason not to believe in Ghosts, fairies, flying spaghetti monsters or celestial teapots.

you left out leprechauns, big foot, loch ness monster, unicorns and Atlantis

Y'all sould be very proud of your thought-limiting abilities. Kudos.

[/sarc]

as plausible as anything. We have no idea what goes on beyond our miniscule realm of understanding.

My dream dinner party: Me, Mitchell, Richard Dawkins, and Pat Robertson. At least three of us would laugh our asses off.

That's fine. Whether or not your convinced, thlough, there certainly is reason to doubt the existence of a god, just as there's reason to believe.

Of course, but in the long run, Pascal's Wager and all that.

The problem with that being that anything less than sincere belief would not likely be good enough for god. Not to mention that if an atheist passing as a Christian lives a life contrary to the one she wishes to live, she most definitely will have lost a great deal if there turns out to be no god.

True. It's cool being Jewish, because all I really have to worry about is being a decent guy. Which is a problem pretty often.

Nonoverlapping Magisteria

Amen, brother.

on all of the above

Can we all agree that any organized religion, regardless of what they are - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, are all a load of garbage?

That's pretty much my thoughts on the matter. We're in no position to judge either way. Still, I'm fairly confident that no religion has an accurate representation of the true nature of He/She/It. Looking at the history of religion makes seem like it was just created as a way to control people and make the some really harsh realities (no afterlife, etc) easier to handle.

and now that afterlife has been brought up -- the people who claim they're making it to the "good" part of the afterlife aren't the kind of people i want to spend eternity with anyway.

Wanna see my tits?
(Read "American Gods")

Never bought Pascal's Wager. So god exists. Which god is it. Perhaps your faith is placed on the wrong god. Call it Pascal's Crap Shoot.

Cheers,
Janine

We have no way of knowing this, nor, I would argue, any reason to suspect this.

I've always been baffled by the notion that god (should god exist) would be all that concerned about whether humans believe in or worship him/her/it.

I certainly agree that an atheist trying to "pass as a Christian" is doing herself a disservice.

While I agree, anyone invoking Pascal's Wager has a particular god in mind, and assumes this god cares if you believe in her or not. Most depictions of gods I've come across also prized sincerity, at least from their subjects if not from themselves.



Um, no...

Pascal's Wager really irritates me. It seems such a cynical take on the question of the existence of God. Why play the odds with such a personal and significant issue?

Oddly I rather like this:

The Atheist's Wager -

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

The only point that I disagree with is the idea that you lose nothing by not beleiving in a god - I think it can be a significant benefit to a person's spiritual and psychological well-being to believe in a diety.

Since I do believe in a benevolent God, I definitely beleive that if we are to be judged at all we will not be judged on our belief in said God.