Religulous

[Beckwin]

yeah that's my chief disagreement with Maher.

[Neosutra]

I think he just generalizes atheists like that to pre-emp attacks by theists.

He insults athiests as well and the theists cant come back with their typical bullshit anti-athiest arguements.

[Kuya]

And here i thought that agnosticism was just for people who don't waste their time complaining about the wrong things.

[Neosutra]

Agnostism is based on the premis that there isnt evidence to the contrary of theist views, or more specifically that the person doesnt believe any one theory has more weight than another. It is quite silly to say all theories on origin are equally probable or possible. Agnostism is really just a lazy excuse for not knowing what evidence is out there. It isnt equally possible that flying minature elephants are the cause of gravity, and I would be irresponsible to say it is possible just due to the inability to prove that theory wrong.

[0ni0n]

Agnostism is based on the premis that there isnt evidence to the contrary of theist views, or more specifically that the person doesnt believe any one theory has more weight than another. It is quite silly to say all theories on origin are equally probable or possible. Agnostism is really just a lazy excuse for not knowing what evidence is out there.

Agnosticism means that god is unknown or inherently impossible to prove or disprove. An agnostic isn't particularly concerned with one religion or another. I am not sure what evident you are referring to.

[rezn0r]

SO IT'S A SOMETIMES-FUNNY MOVIE? BALLSY!

[Neosutra]

So exactly what I said... they dont believe there is evidence to the contrary..?

[Deftscythe]

Seems like Neosutra is talking about creation/origin theories, which I don't think factor into agnosticism which just has to do with the existence of God.

[Kuya]

Evidence against gods and spiritual beings? You have this? Perhaps you should be more concerned with bettering yourself and not be concerned with what other people do with their minds.

[Kaylia]

As a scientist I agree that saying 100% certainty of something is irresponsible. However it is more irresponsible to require someone to apply legitimacy to every possible theory.

I treat most things as weighted probabilities. The concept of a god has its good place on my scale of possible theories, but unfortunately there is no evidence in that box to weight it above the null set.

Agnostism is a fad, and Mayr's film is an attack on the concept of religion, not god. (However one would argue that the belief in god is part of that delusional state).

As a mathematician, I'm going to say the probability of an event that is excluded from a set is 0%.

Atheist reject theism, or affirm the non existence of God. Either way, if you believe the probability isn't 100%, then you're not an atheist, because you contradict the definition of the word.


And seriously, giving a weight to the existence of God (or lack of) is ridiculous. Tell me a solid argument that allow you to say one weight more than the other.

[edit]
You can try to explain gravity with miniature pink elephant, but in this case, your pink elephant would have the property of quantum particles.

It's different when you talk about God, because the concept is undefined.

Agnostism is really just a lazy excuse

And that's what you're based on your reasoning, even if it was flawed in the first place.

[Beckwin]

the popular notion/definition of the word "god" is defined by dogma/silly human fantasies; there's no reason to still hold on to that word or idea when you recognize how silly the absolutist theist dogma is. that's why I think agnosticism is just a concession to religion. just say atheist if you don't recognize the notion of a god as being proven true.

[Kuya]

There are varied definitions and conceptions on what a god is. You're going to have to attack every last one of them if you intend to delegitimize them all, because you can't generalize them and then say you've made any kind of point. Also, when you guys speak of theism, do you include pantheism and deism in your criticism?

[Beckwin]

deism tends to be loose christianity (or another religion, if you prefer) without the formal religion/dogma involved, so yes in that case. deists have talked about a "Creator" or "God". I include pantheism as well, because like deism, these all-powerful beings tend to be characterized in human or anthropomorphic ways.

An atheist and a theist alike acknowledge the (still) unknown, but in different ways. The atheist simply admits it and goes on as best he can with what he does know; the theist/deist/polytheist pretends he knows things that he doesn't and then worships (to varying degrees and by varying methods) those fantasies. The agnostic essentially does as the atheist does, except he entertains the other guys by saying "well, you might be absolutely 100% correct! ^_^"

[Neosutra]

Beckwin stated decent responses and I am about to hit the sack, but I wanted to address something Kaylia said:

"Giving a weight to the theory of God is rediculous".

Absolutely not. Part of what I define as being an atheist is simply applying a standard to what I accept as fact, using the scientific method as a filter for belief. Saying the concept of god should be held above any logical filters is rediculous.

There is no evidence for god, and any clear definition for god can easily be reasoned as false (we got into this debate last time about the inability to define god, as any definition negates reality and the true thiest version of god is undefinable).

As for now, good night.

[Demosthenes11]

Evidence for god to a lot of people is matter itself - the big bang itself, life itself, etc

I dont know what kind of evidence you could possibly be looking for...the leg of god? Trying to conceptualize god in a way which is relatable to humans is not right. God could permeate and speak through rocks for all we know if he does exist. Why do we try and disprove the being as a guy in a white robe with a beard?

[Palin]

From what I understand, there's two "forms" of agnosticism. One of them subscribes to the idea that there's no way to know for certain which religion/view of god is correct, and so its basically the "I don't know" response.

The other, which I personally subscribe to, is that as humans we could never fathom to understand the will of a Creator if it exists, so attempting to live our lives following an interpretation of it is impossible.

They kinda explain the same thing, just one is "I don't know so I'm sitting here because there's no evidence" while the other is "it's impossible to comprehend, so there's no point trying to act as if we do." Semantics in a way.

[Beckwin]

Evidence for god to a lot of people is matter itself - the big bang itself, life itself, etc

I dont know what kind of evidence you could possibly be looking for...the leg of god? Trying to conceptualize god in a way which is relatable to humans is not right. God could permeate and speak through rocks for all we know if he does exist. Why do we try and disprove the being as a guy in a white robe with a beard?

if "god" permeates through everything and it doesn't make sense to envision whatever it may be as having a human form/characteristics/etc... why call it god? there's still a lot we don't know or currently cannot comprehend in our physical world, but we don't worship it. what I'm saying is that "god" as we commonly accept the notion of it is not the proper term for the unknown/imperceptible. god implies a being, it implies dominion/hierarchy, it certainly strongly encourages worship, and so on... that's just not the right word unless you choose to believe (markedly different than accepting something provable/evident) those qualities without any basis to do so.

[Blarg]

As a mathematician, I'm going to say the probability of an event that is excluded from a set is 0%.

Atheist reject theism, or affirm the non existence of God. Either way, if you believe the probability isn't 100%, then you're not an atheist, because you contradict the definition of the word.


And seriously, giving a weight to the existence of God (or lack of) is ridiculous. Tell me a solid argument that allow you to say one weight more than the other.

[edit]
You can try to explain gravity with miniature pink elephant, but in this case, your pink elephant would have the property of quantum particles.

It's different when you talk about God, because the concept is undefined.





And that's what you're based on your reasoning, even if it was flawed in the first place.

This is what I meant when I said earlier about the misunderstanding of the definition of atheism. To be an atheist all that is required is to 'not have the belief in a god' it is NOT to say 'I know god doesn't exist'

Agnosticism and atheism are not exclusive from one another, I think any honest atheist has to be an agnostic atheist, just like they must be an agnostic to EVERYTHING ridiculous. Since agnosticism essentially refers to your certainty into something not being 100 percent, it means that you must be agnostic about every single thing. (ie. even if you have a mathematical proof you can't say for certain it is true, in an absolute sense, since your life as you know it may be a dream and in the real world such math doesn't work the same way)

So, since agnosticism is like a sliding scale of 'certainty' never reaching 100% both theist and atheists should apply the term to their theist or atheist beliefs (or lack thereof).

What this requires, or just helps clarify, to be more specific into just how agnostic one is would be to use the term 'strong atheist' to mean your level of agnosticism is rather low (ie. small chance god could exist) or weak atheist, where you don't have a belief in a god but you view certain things to be 'evidence' enough that the possibility of god is however likely. There would of course be very strong and very weak positions depending on the person and how technical one wants to be.

Needless to say if one doesn't find a single thing shown as evidence of god to be convincing they could be a very strong agnostic atheist. Putting the term agnostic in front of everything you believe or disbelieve is just silly so most people just leave it out.

long post over

[Rhinox]

"Guys, God exists don't ask me to prove it cause I have no proof just take my word for it he exists."

What bugs me about most of the mainstream religions is the convenience factor. Maher touched on this. How convenient that god only talks to prophets in secret. Like Moses Burning bush or in Daniels dreams and even Joesph smith talking fish etc.

I grew up Catholic and when I started having my doubts I went to the parish priest and asked for guidance. My questions revolved around the cliche "why do good things happen to bad people" because of an untimely death of a childhood friend that I've known for almost 2 dozen years.

Now when I asked the priest the question he couldn't answer it. The only thing he was able to say was "the Lord says take care of yourself and he will take care of you". And I thought to myself that was the biggest crook of bullshit I have ever heard. It really underlined basically of what all faiths preach which is Blind faith. Sure I could've chalked it up to a crappy priest. but it really opened my eyes and my mind that maybe religion doesn't have all the answers it claims to provide.

People want to believe in fairy tales by all means go ahead.

[Kaylia]

the popular notion/definition of the word "god" is defined by dogma/silly human fantasies; there's no reason to still hold on to that word or idea when you recognize how silly the absolutist theist dogma is. that's why I think agnosticism is just a concession to religion. just say atheist if you don't recognize the notion of a god as being proven true.

The concept of God isn't definined by silly human fantasies or dogma. Every religions out there add a bunch of meaningless specification, but those specific definitions aren't the general definition of God.

An atheist and a theist alike acknowledge the (still) unknown, but in different ways. The atheist simply admits it and goes on as best he can with what he does know; the theist/deist/polytheist pretends he knows things that he doesn't and then worships (to varying degrees and by varying methods) those fantasies. The agnostic essentially does as the atheist does, except he entertains the other guys by saying "well, you might be absolutely 100% correct! ^_^"

First of all, you don't have to "worship" God. You should replace "worship" with "believe" or something else. Both atheism and theism are beliefs, and that's all there is to it.

Second, the atheist doesn't admit the unknown, he believes that he know something, because he can determine if something is or is not a part of this unknown. You can't do this logically, you can only assume based on your bias.

I will try to answer your 3rd point quickly because I should be sleeping:

X,Y,Z are number number between 0 and 1
What's the probability God exist: X <= 100%
What's the probability christian God exist Y <= X
What's the probability christhian God exists and want you to go to church every sunday Z<= Y <= X

What I'm trying to say is that the more specification you add, the chance of it being correct is at least equals or lower. Why bother with additional specification when it doesn't increase your chance of being right.

I have no problem telling someone he might be 100% right, but he will have to do some effort to demonstrate that every elements of the definition are importants to explain whatever he is trying to explain with his concept of God.