Do you believe in God?

How would you classify yourself?

  • Gnostic Theist

    Votes: 270 11.9%
  • Agnostic Theist

    Votes: 229 10.1%
  • Gnostic Atheist

    Votes: 272 12.0%
  • Agnostic Atheist

    Votes: 1,282 56.7%
  • Apatheist

    Votes: 210 9.3%

  • Total voters
    2,263
Oct 25, 2017
2,073
We probably do.

But what do you call skeletons, nervous systems, etc but a design with a purpose?
Do you know what natural selection /environmental adaptation is. we evolve based on our surroundings not the other way around, that's why everything seems so perfectly hit because evolution is the guiding force for life in the universe. Everything works because it's for the betterment of our life, that goes for every single living species on this planet. Millions of years of natural selection. sure you've heard of survival of the fittest.
 

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
653
I thought Atisha was a somewhat funny troll until I realized that he is somebodys neighbour and is maybe allowed to vote
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,588
The very notion of belief itself can be be rhetorically whittled to the bare nub of its meaning. I'd like to talk to you a lot more about this, would you be interested in reading some of my literature?
 

Mona

Member
Oct 30, 2017
15,646
All you people can muster are musings, mutterings, and derision, I am disappoint
 

Atisha

Member
Nov 28, 2017
1,210
User banned (1 week): trolling and inflammatory posting over a series of posts
You don’t deny Kent Hovinism. It’s not worth debating
Now i go look up Kent Hovinsm.

Well first its Hovind. Minor detail i know.

The first few lines state he's a young earth person.

I believe the earth is many billions of years old, because the ever loving slew of evidence supports that contention.

Unlike evolutionary theory....which is a fraud, and a phoney, and has no corroborating evidece whatsoever.

After his dubious claim, i stopped reading.
 

digdug2k

Member
Mar 28, 2018
667
Debating Atisha is literally like debating Kent Hovind. He’s pulled most of the playbook. Troll or not, it’s a waste of time.
Like, you don't have to debate him. Your lack of knowledge about how human beings came to exist isn't proof that theirs a magic man in the sky that made us. We can know absolutely nothing and have zero theories about where we come from and... believing that an omnipotent, all powerful being stitched us together from nothing would still be as non-scientific as it is today.
 

Televator

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,629
Now i go look up Kent Hovinsm.

Well first its Hovind. Minor detail i know.

The first few lines state he's a young earth person.

I believe the earth is many billions of years old, because the ever loving slew of evidence supports that contention.

Unlike evolutionary theory....which is a fraud, and a phoney, and has no corroborating evidece whatsoever.

After his dubious claim, i stopped reading.
FYI, you’re literally ripping the man’s playbook on evolution debating tactics. The guy you just said was dubious...
 

hjort

Member
Nov 9, 2017
1,641
We probably do.

But what do you call skeletons, nervous systems, etc but a design with a purpose?
I think I'd rather say that skeletons or nervous systems have a function rather than a purpose. They exist today because they have aided the various species in their survival throughout the process of evolution and not because someone or something figured we would need it. Take this for instance: Our skeletons still have a tailbone, but we don't have a tail anymore. Our ancestors didn't benefit from having tails, and over time the tails were reduced to nothing. It's essentially the same with any other part of our bodies or nature.

The reason why we see things as fitting together so well in nature, or everything seemingly having a function is because all the things that didn't have died out, basically.
 

Taker34

QA Tester
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
806
Earth
Now i go look up Kent Hovinsm.

Well first its Hovind. Minor detail i know.

The first few lines state he's a young earth person.

I believe the earth is many billions of years old, because the ever loving slew of evidence supports that contention.

Unlike evolutionary theory....which is a fraud, and a phoney, and has no corroborating evidece whatsoever.

After his dubious claim, i stopped reading.


This is actually incredibly sad considering it’s 2019 and you can access all relevant scientific papers with a view clicks if one has to really make sure we’re part of earth’s evolutionary history.
 

KarneeKarnay

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,098
I don’t

I don’t have any evidence that the universe is self-created. I just have seen no evidence that it’s created. My position is “I don’t know” what started it all. It’s possible that the universe created itself. The phrase “before the universe” also doesn’t make any sense since time began along with our local universe afawk.
I think we can agree of that we both don't know. The idea of a self creating universe doesn't make any sense, because that would imply something came from nothing. The lays of thermodynamics, dictate energy cannot come from nothing. To me it makes sense that that something came before for that energy to exist.

How do we have proof that time existed only at the creation of the universe? Time is light, so I get that part, but I wasn't aware we had proved the existence of something that came before it?
 

eso76

Member
Dec 8, 2017
2,106
One would think banning those who fell for it would actually work towards making this a better place.
 

Reckheim

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,896
I think we can agree of that we both don't know. The idea of a self creating universe doesn't make any sense, because that would imply something came from nothing. The lays of thermodynamics, dictate energy cannot come from nothing. To me it makes sense that that something came before for that energy to exist.

How do we have proof that time existed only at the creation of the universe? Time is light, so I get that part, but I wasn't aware we had proved the existence of something that came before it?
Hence many people are Agnostic and not Atheist.

However just because we don't know how something came to be, doesn't mean its prove that there is something greater then us. We simply just don't know, and that's fine.
 

KarneeKarnay

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,098
Hence many people are Agnostic and not Atheist.

However just because we don't know how something came to be, doesn't mean its prove that there is something greater then us. We simply just don't know, and that's fine.
That what I put myself as. I'm just explaining as to why I find it more reasonable as opposed to a Self-Creating universe.
 

ThreepQuest64

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
2,892
Germany
Isn't a gnostic atheist an agnostic theist? I find gnostic atheist somewhat contradictory. I mean, gnosticism describes several religious ideas. I find it somewhat confusing.

Anyhow, voted for agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any deity but I won't rule out that they could possibly exist.
 

plagiarize

To its ports I have been
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
8,832
Cape Cod, MA
Isn't a gnostic atheist an agnostic theist? I find gnostic atheist somewhat contradictory. I mean, gnosticism describes several religious ideas. I find it somewhat confusing.

Anyhow, voted for agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any deity but I won't rule out that they could possibly exist.
Gnostic, in this context, basically talks about how concrete your beliefs are. Are you 100% or less.

I'm a gnostic atheist because I believe 100% that God isn't real. I believe it as firmly as I believe that I am real, which is to say, as much as we can say anything with any degree of certainty, I am that certain.

You can split hairs and argue we can't be 100% certain of anything, but that's just a rhetorical argument I haven't got time for really. I'm as certain as can be. I think it's fair to call that 100% certain.
 

N.Domixis

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
6,620
I think we can agree of that we both don't know. The idea of a self creating universe doesn't make any sense, because that would imply something came from nothing. The lays of thermodynamics, dictate energy cannot come from nothing. To me it makes sense that that something came before for that energy to exist.

How do we have proof that time existed only at the creation of the universe? Time is light, so I get that part, but I wasn't aware we had proved the existence of something that came before it?
I just think about it like this. If nothing existed before our universe than there would be no laws to govern what can or can’t happen. Anything can happen or nothing and the universe was that. But this is all ass pulling thinking.
 

olag

Member
Oct 28, 2017
658
Your ignoring the elemental contention i've made repeatedly.
Your main contention which you've blithely paraded around is flawed because
A) The evolutionary pressures which produced lions are different to those which produced mice ofcoarse if you had a few hundred years to isolate a lion population and provide them with just enough food to survive you start to see the species adapt their morphology, perhaps even given the right conditions becoming as small as cats or even mice(look up insular dwarfism). But then what would that new species? A lion? A mouse? No....quite possibly the combination of the genomic and phenomic characteristics it was able to keep would make it a new species.

B) we have observed speciation albeit on a smaller scale. In the selective breeding an expression of different phenotypes in plant flowers and fruit fly species. However even something as mundane as the creation of several mongrel do breeds can be viewed as the start speciation as it becomes more difficult as hybrid embryos between two breeds becomes increasingly difficult to bring to full term. And even looking at fossil record we can observe that mammalian fossils don't actually come before synapsids started appearing in the fossil record. These are a group of animals animals which show both reptilian and mammalian adaptations in their bone structures.

This isn't even considering the existence of evolutionary dead ends such as ligers and mules which show that even within the same species, animals cannot mate indefinitely.

So no I don't think your contention holds any merit on every single level of study . Whether it be zoology ,genetics, microbiology or paleontology.
 

KarneeKarnay

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,098
I just think about it like this. If nothing existed before our universe than there would be no laws to govern what can or can’t happen. Anything can happen or nothing and the universe was that. But this is all ass pulling thinking.
I don't think you are that far off in all honesty. I think part of the reason we have a hard time envisioning the creation of the universe is that it would be such an alien event to us, that we would and probably never will have a way to explain it.
 

Elandyll

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,145
I swear, I was reading what Atisha was posting and between the word salad, unwillingness to debate in good faith, and the arrogance based on ignorance, I had literally the picture of Borat in my mind.
If that was the goal, bravo!
 

Clefargle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,835
Limburg
I think we can agree of that we both don't know. The idea of a self creating universe doesn't make any sense, because that would imply something came from nothing. The lays of thermodynamics, dictate energy cannot come from nothing. To me it makes sense that that something came before for that energy to exist.

How do we have proof that time existed only at the creation of the universe? Time is light, so I get that part, but I wasn't aware we had proved the existence of something that came before it?
I don’t know about any of that, but if we agree that something cannot come from nothing, then either the same should apply to any “god” or the universe could have been born from an earlier universe. So if something cannot come from nothing, then how can a “god” come from nothing?
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,073
I don’t know about any of that, but if we agree that something cannot come from nothing, then either the same should apply to any “god” or the universe could have been born from an earlier universe. So if something cannot come from nothing, then how can a “god” come from nothing?
You have to remember when it comes to religious belief and gods, once you start picking it apart it falls apart.
 

Voltaire

Member
Sep 13, 2018
86
Is that not what nature is though?

Who or what force is responsible for all the designs in nature? And make no mistake, these are designs, meant to serve a purpose. It's no accident.

And again, I don't mean a biblical god necessarily, but the idea of there being some kind of creator.
Design and purpose are to be demonstrated not assumed.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,705
By that definition I'd be an agnostic atheist. I don't think it's possible to know whether god exists, and I'm not convinced that god does exist, so I do not have a positive belief that god exists.

Generally, I think faith is the better barometer for me. I don't have faith in god, so I am not a theist. I prefer to say "I don't have faith" or "I do have faith," (or whatever) because I find this is a less triggering statement for some theists or religious people than "I don't believe" or "There is no god."

There is no God
Besides maybe Tom Brady
.. changes vote ..
 

Wackamole

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,965
I think we can agree of that we both don't know. The idea of a self creating universe doesn't make any sense, because that would imply something came from nothing. The lays of thermodynamics, dictate energy cannot come from nothing. To me it makes sense that that something came before for that energy to exist.

How do we have proof that time existed only at the creation of the universe? Time is light, so I get that part, but I wasn't aware we had proved the existence of something that came before it?
It does to some. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book about it and there is a presentation here: I'm not convinced but at least there is a theory.
 

aasoncott

Technical artist
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
60
Gnostic, in this context, basically talks about how concrete your beliefs are. Are you 100% or less.

I'm a gnostic atheist because I believe 100% that God isn't real. I believe it as firmly as I believe that I am real, which is to say, as much as we can say anything with any degree of certainty, I am that certain.

You can split hairs and argue we can't be 100% certain of anything, but that's just a rhetorical argument I haven't got time for really. I'm as certain as can be. I think it's fair to call that 100% certain.
Yeah, it's all semantics. I've often used the Greek god analogy: just because I can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist, doesn't mean I'm Zeus agnostic. You can't prove a negative.

Agnostic implies that your worldview allows for the possibility. An "agnostic atheist" is still ultimately a religious position. I'm not religious, therefore I kind of have to be gnostic.

But you could spend the rest of eternity debating this and take any position imaginable and probably still be able to justify whatever label you want, so ultimately just go with a label that doesn't involve being a dick to people.
 

PKrockin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,118
I just want to clarify that scientific laws are different from, say, laws a government passes. Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. We didn't peek into the source code of the universe and find variables being initialized and values defined for gravity. Our equations didn't come from a copy of the Constitution for the Universe written by God. They're simply man-made descriptions of matter, energy, and their interactions we observe, that we have high confidence in to be accurate within its defined scope. I can use a code to quickly express the properties of a rock--its color, hardness, structure, etc. My code does not dictate what the rock is or what it can do--it's the other way around. That's my understanding, as a layman.

We should also not assume that the laws of physics as we know them apply "before the big bang", if such a phrase is even coherent. It's my understanding that physicists say that the laws of physics could be different "before the big bang", we're not sure yet.