I'm an Agnostic Atheist too - so, can't help you with that.
If you want to be converted, study the Bible and convert yourself.
lol Some posts are very aggravating, especially ones like this one.
Well, I looked it up and it says -
"Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."
So, if I understand that correctly, it means you don't believe in God because God's existence is unknowable - presumably because you don't accept any proof that has been offered. Is that about right?
That... is pretty much spot on actually
Cool! Just wanna make sure I understand the challenge.
My answer is going to be a lot more simple than many would expect I suppose. You may need to open your mind a bit to consider it seriously. But, here we go.
In my estimation, the evidence of a Creator is all around us - Creation itself. Look around where ever you might be right now. All that didn't spring up out of no where. Concentrate on the natural things - not the man made things. The Earth, sky, trees, birds, on and on.
Yes, I am aware of evolution and the big bang and all that. But even the big bang - one must ask - what caused that?
So, based on those two simple paragraphs Carmo, I want you to change your entire perspective on life! (Joking) But, for me, after years of consideration, I find myself questioning the scientific 'explanations' far more than the spiritual ones.
If you have serious interest, I suggest doing some self study, prayer, attending church to learn more. The fact that you're asking is a good sign.
If this was another attempt to sucker a Christian into a public flogging - shame on you and prepare yourself for some verbal sparring.
Obviously, something of this magnitude isn't going to change your mind all of a sudden, with some sweeping revelation. There's too many patterns of though already embedded. They need to be evaluated and dealt with in an order that makes sense to you.
(Wouldn't it have been so much easier if God had simply left something behind that we all simply knew could only have been left by God? He did - it's Creation itself.)
I appreciate you looking into my position before hand. I am much more interested in civil discussion than flogging anyone :p
I have spent an awful amount of time within churches and praying and such. But I am much more intrigued with the "what caused the cause" argument rather than specific gods Like what caused the big bang etc
There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself.
Which one do you ascribe to?
My mind almost exploded trying to comprehend some of these. Love it! Overall I would say we don't know. But I'm leaning towards (1) but I'm also very okay with (3) but then it just raises the question of what created the something or someone.
Excellent! And, very consistent with your atheist / agnostic description of your beliefs.
Let's deal with #1 first - the idea that creation is eternal - it's always been here, and will always be here. This gets a bit lengthy, t took a while to get it resolved. So, strap in, grab a fresh cusp of coffee and let's get started.
The most comfortable position for the person who does not believe in God is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending, and thus the need for any “first cause” such as God. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light that indicated the Universe was expanding. These scientists suggested that at points in space called “irtrons” hydrogen was coming into existence from nothing. As hydrogen atoms arrived, they had to “go” somewhere, and as they did, they displaced matter already in existence, causing the Universe to expand. Dr. Hoyle suggested that the atoms of gaseous hydrogen gradually condensed into clouds of virgin matter, that within these clouds new stars and galaxies formed, etc.
However, the Steady State Theory was doomed to failure, in part, because it violated one of the most fundamental laws of science—the first law of thermodynamics (also referred to as the law of the conservation of matter and/or energy), which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature.
But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact.
The Steady State Theory eventually was relegated to the relic heaps of history. Yet problems for those who advocated an eternal Universe continued to multiply because such a concept violated the second law of thermodynamics as well. Simply stated, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that as energy is employed to perform work, it is transformed from a usable to a nonusable form. The Universe is “running down” because energy is becoming less available for use.
And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates that the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up. Arthur Eddington, the most distinguished astronomer of his day, wrote: “If our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe.” When that occurred, and Who or what wound up the Universe, were questions that bemused theologians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the 1920’s and 1930’s.
A year before making that admission, Dr. Jastrow made another important concession when he wrote:
Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that the world has not existed forever;... The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same; modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future .
The scientific evidence states clearly that the Universe had a beginning—something eternal things do not have. Nor do eternal things “run down,” yet clearly the Universe is doing just that, as Dr. Jastrow has noted. As Henry Morris has commented, “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” Indeed, it does. The Universe is now known not to be eternal.
I know that's a lot to digest, and I realize that you don't know me from Adam and you may want to check the information. Go ahead - and when you discover that what I've said is true, you will be left with one last explanation for Creation, # 3 - the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself.
Let me know if / when you are ready to discuss further.
I think I follow pretty well. Before I agree with your premise I need to ask you how you are defining universe. Because one could argue that the "observable universe" is in this state of cool down but can't speak for everything.
I'm talking UNIVERSE - the whole shebang.
If you are 'one' that is looking for a lesser God, one that is in control of all things see-able and knowable, you're talking to the wrong guy. Mine is The One God, Father almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth. Everything you you can see and everything you've never even imagined - He did it.
If you want to play games and pretend that once you get out so far that the laws of physics change - then I submit, you were never looking for an answer - your were looking for an ambush. There is no reason to suggest that physics is any different 'there' than here - where ever there is. If there were reasons then we would know if physics is different elsewhere.
Don't phuck with me Carmo.
My god people on this site are hostile. I was legitimately intrigued with where you were going and I had a simple question. I would like to point out that I have never talked about this stuff before. I can retract it if you want
Get off your high horse before you hurt yourself Carm.
You're suggesting that you can't believe in God, that left you with all kinds of evidence and even science that can explain it -
HOWEVER - you're OK with making an assumption that the laws of physics change at some point in the Universe.
Darn right I'm pissed! I told you at the outset - "If this was another attempt to sucker a Christian into a public flogging - shame on you and prepare yourself for some verbal sparring." Why be surprised once you spring your 'trap'?
I don't want to anger you. As I said, I really am only looking for civil conversation. I don't believe in God but I believe there could be a God. Just like i don't believe the laws of physics change but I believe that that too is a possibility. You knew that was my position.
You never said anything about your belief in the laws of physics being variable at your chosen point in space and time.
I'm happy to participate in civil conversation as long as it's honest. Pulling variable laws of physics out of your ass is not honest.
I have scientific proof of my point of view. Your point of view requires an alteration of the laws of physics - yet that's the one you want to go with?
Sorry Carmo -your street cred just took a nose dive in my book. The civil part of this conversation was over the moment you revealed your dishonesty.
I respect explaining my faults and why my argument is dishonest or fallacious. I don't appreciate you turning aggressive.
OK, thanks for the heads up!
Why would, or should we care if you believe or not?
If we were to try, we are condemned for "shoving it down your throat". Either a person believes or doesn't.
You don't have to care and that's fine. This is my first time posting something religious. I'm starting to pick up on a pattern with responses. Do a lot of people use this site to put down believers?
When you discuss religion here, or anywhere else online, it ends up, damned if you do, damned if you don't. There are also a lot of non-believers who try to "bait" believers for some reason. For those who believe, no proof is needed, for those who don't no amount of proof will be sufficient.
Not my jam, but Bud can get you on track if that's what you really want.
Lol, proper reaction xD
Haha i'm just a chicken XD ... admittedly though, our family on here seem to have dealt with this far more civilly than back in the sodahead days. Well done to everyone
But... I'm asking. That's like telling someone asking why do you like trump "hey I mind my own business"
Okay. Thanks for jumping on a random person's post to talk about how you are above talking to them about it.
Sorry, that is a job for you to carry out, not the posters on here. Your beliefs belong to you and no one else.
You're not wrong. But belief can be changed with different outlooks and new information. Would you agree?
It can but that is a personal journey, not someone else's.
... To a nostic atheist?
Atheisim and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism deals with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist: I don't believe but I don't claim to know for sure that Gods don't exist or a nostic atheist: I don't believe and I know that Gods don't exist.
Agnostic isn't a group specific to religion. We are agnostic about a lot of things. Some people are agnostic about bigfoot etc. You still talk as if it is the belief. We're talking about knowledge. Something is either true or it isn't. If you don't have facts at first and say "x is true" and then get more information later and then you say "x is actually false" "x" wasn't true before and became false when the new information came about, your view on it changed. Until receiving sufficient information your default should be "I don't know" We are either agnostic or nostic about absolutely every claim.
"So, if I understand that correctly, it means you don't believe in God because God's existence is unknowable - presumably because you don't accept any proof that has been offered."
So by definition all arguments are pre-rejected. This discussion is nothing more than an idle amusement.
Not accepting evidence I've seen up until now does not mean I will reject other evidence I haven't seen. I don't accept the proof "that has been offered"
Science is anything that can be measured. Spirit is anything that can not be measured. Science is powered by logic and evidence. Spirit is powered by believing and wisdom. No connection. It is not possible to prove or disprove spiritual things with science.
The only way we can know anything about the spirit realm is if some spirit chooses to reveal it to us. All the revelations have been collected into a book. You can read it for yourself and decide if you believe it or not.
A lot of people take a very dim view of the book and have been telling everybody it says a bunch of things it does not say, so you need to read the book for yourself, putting aside everything you have been told it says.
Read a chapter of Proverbs every day. Proverbs has 31 chapters so you can keep your place by just looking at a calendar. When you are comfortable with that, then read the bible from Romans to 2 Thessalonians over and over until you start to remember what it says. That is the part that applies to Christians.
Why would I want to? God shows Himself to who He wants. If He hasnt shown Himself to you, and you identify with Atheism, why would I consider you Christian material?
I'm not sure what that means. You openly abandon people who don't know or believe in god?
Let me understand., you dont believe in the human soul, spirits, ghosts, life after death or heaven? You think we just exist here for no reason and evolved from nothing?
no one seem to agree on what a soul is, so on that basis I would say I don't know what you expect me to believe. I don't believe in life after death. I think we exist and can give ourselves our own purpose or reason. I think we evolved from a common ancestor of apes. I don't know how the first life came about.
You think we evolved from apes? Hahaha! Then why are there still apes? And why haven't any other animals evolved into beings who can build skyscrapers, and do complicated arithmetic, and wear clothes and create computers? That's just silly.
Carmo did not say we evolved from apes! Go back and actually read what he typed: "we evolved from a common ancestor". The branch of evolution which led to us is not the same branch of evolution which led to the current-day apes. And your question about why other animals have not evolved into skyscraper designers and mathematicians demonstrates that you do not understand the basic ideas of Darwin's theory of evolution, so don't call it silly until you have read the book first (It is "On The Origin Of Species" published 1859).
I've read Darwins theory and I think it's just that. A theory! There is no truth to it. And he said a common ancestor of apes. What were apes common ancestors? Oh my bad. It was a gorilla.
That's why it is called a theory, because it is exactly that until a better explanation is proposed that will replace it. Until then, it is the most logical theory that has been proposed so far as the best alternative to the theory of creation which is suggested in the book of Genesis.
But also, the Great Flood and the Noah's Ark theory is still completely unbelievable because the Ark was not large enough to carry as many animals simultaneously as the theory claims that it did.
As for the ape ancestor question, I will have to go back and look through my copy of Darwin's book to see if that particular detail is precisely defined. I would surmise that it would be a smaller stature humanoid-like species than a gorilla. The gorilla would have evolved along a different branch from the common ancestor than the human species did.
Look up the way that scientists use the word "theory." Its different than other people use it. Evolution is a proven theory. Ever heard of gravitational theory? Or Cell theory? or heliocentric theory (that the earth orbits the sun. There is no greater status than theory in science. You're thinking of hypothesis.
Whoa. I have never attacked your beliefs. Why are you attacking mine. You don't even care about my beliefs enough to at least learn what they are. If you want to talk about it lets talk about it without being bigoted.
How did I attack your beliefs? My point doesn't make sense? All I was doing was making a point, but ok. I am open minded, and I'm a no traditional Christian by the way as I also believe some of the Buddhist religion and some Atheist views but I do know Jesus Christ is real. I also believe in reincarnation. You know who Anne Frank is right?
Everything you post just screams "you're an idiot!" The condescension of "you know who Anne Frank is right?"
I was asking you if you know who she is because I wanted to ask you to go on Youtube and search for Babro Karlen. Just watch like the first 10 min. Or so.....but it wouldnt have any bearing if you didnt know who she was, thats why I asked...sorry
The soul is the part of you that jumps hard when falling asleep. It's from the tether attached to your body and when the soul is getting too far from the body too fast, the tether wanks you back into your body. The soul is the part of you that hurts inside your chest when a loved one dies and you cry for them with deep profound love, usually alone. Other animals do not have the ability to mourn as deeply as we do, and some of us do it extensively. The human soul is not your body, your brain, or your personality. It is not blood, or skin or thoughts but it is the raw emotion and intellect you are born with that no one taught you. And how rude of an awakening when you find out you will still exist when you die! At that time, call for Jesus....He will come to you and help you. You will be afraid, but remember I told you this.
Abandon? No, but I never needed "converting". I cannot help you "know" God, and I am sure you have a Bible, just dont believe anything it says. You openly reject God which puts you in the category of the Godless men who mock His existence and sarcastically say " convert me". If you were seeking truly God you wouldn't label yourself an atheist.
I do regret the way that I started the post. I realize that it came across as mocking or sarcastic. I did just want a dialogue. I don't reject god, I just don't believe, which is not a choice.
Its definitely a choice but it's also a reality. For me anyways, I mean if it's not real for you and you dont feel it, then you haven't been touched by Him. However don't think that people who believe in God are needing to believe in something so bad that they are making something out of nothing like an imaginary friend. Have you ever seen the pictures in those 3D pictures called Magic eye or something? Can you see the subliminal 3D picture? Some can see it some cannot but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Pardon me for jumping into the middle of a conversation, but I have a specific issue with this god that people have been telling me about. I was raised by Christian parents and I went to church every Sunday and I read the entire Holy Bible during my youth. But I have prayed to this god hundreds of times and none of my prayers have ever been answered. That was sufficient evidence for me that this god being does not really exist, so I am now convinced that there is no such thing as god.
I see where you're coming from but with that evidence all you can really say is that "that" God doesn't exist (one that answers prayers) not their is no Gods.
Oh and I don't think He hears prayers from someone who doesn't believe in Him. He can't hear you because you're not real to Him either.
Well, going to church and reading the Bible don't make you a believer. I didn't have religion forced down my throats growing up and I've never read the entire Bible but God is as real as they come. No one cares if you don't believe, just like no one cares that I do. God backwards is Dog, and just like your faithful pet and loving Father, he waits by the door watching out the window while you live your life of fast paced self importance waiting for you to come home and show you how much Hes missed you and loves you. I just hope you don't try to kick Him when you get there. And I catch your level of disrespect by calling Him "god".
If you think that your particular god needs to be called by a proper noun which is capitalized with an upper case "G", then that's your choice. I am simply using the general noun "god" because this is just the latest of a panoply of gods that mankind has spoken about throughout the entire time of human existence. The other people from the Middle East area of the world refer to it as "Allah" (with an upper case "A").
The Holy Bible refers to God Almighty. If you were to reference the devil I'd bet youd cap his name...
I don't know about capitalizing the devil's name because there is no such thing as "the" devil. But I have heard some people attach personal names to that fictional character, such as Lucifer or Beelzebub or Satan. So in those cases, since names are always capitalized, that would be proper.
I just vomited in my mouth.