It’s hardly a distraction. You do not believe in (biblical-)God, you don’t know what or if to believe and you think you would like to believe ‘something’.
You switch between any of these whenever someone wants a clearer answer as to what you mean by ‘God’.
As long as you are not clear yourself how do you expect people to give clear answers? Or is rolling around in vagueness really what you want?
People mean different things by the words agnostic and atheist.
I take Cosmodan’s statement to mean that he just doesn’t know.
People use “atheist” to mean either “doesn’t believe in god” or “believes there is no god”. Similarly, agnostic can mean “it doesn’t really matter to me”, or “I just don’t know” or “it’s impossible to know whether there is a god”. Even in the “doesn’t really matter” camp there is a wide spectrum from people who just don’t care to people who have very carefully reasoned out that the answer doesn’tt affect their choices or values.
That’s why I asked. But cosmosdan thinks there are “standard” definitions.
I don’t think that’s what he meant. Atheism is a position about belief and the definition of agnosticism you’re going by is a position on knowledge. Those two positions aren’t mutually exclusive, but cosmodan is apparently using the two words in a way that is.
God gets the Nobel prize for proving himself. He accepts it giving a very boring speech.
Bingo, which I thought was widely understood and made my agnosticism pretty clear given my posts. Someone telling me “oh no you’re not” seems foolsih given these facts and I’m not interested in spending several posts debating what IMO should be obvious. Thanks for the post.
No one ever said that you’re not an agnostic. So, you’re going by the definition where it’s a position on knowledge. That says nothing about your belief or lack of it. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You said you no longer believe. That makes you an agnostic atheist.
Can you answer my question?
Since you no longer are a believer, then doesn’t the question apply to you also? You don’t believe anyone’s experience is real? After all, belief in God is already incredibly dominant in mankind.
This is exactly the kind of semantic quibbling I have no interest in and consider a distraction from the ongoing discussion.
Did it esape you that the statement says YOU and not I? I didn’t say that was my personal position did I?
I don’t want to quibble. This wouldn’t have had to go this far if you would just give your definitions. What’s your definition of “atheist”?
This is just being plain dishonest. No, it didn’t escape me. That’s why I asked “then doesn’t the question apply to you also?” How about you answer you’re own question?
And you sure seem to be contradicting yourself a lot in this thread. You say you’re not a believer, yet you’ve made statements such as this:
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
His word being what exactly? I’m not proposeing Gid says “The BIble is true , those others aren’t” I’m only saying he demonstrates his existence. That still leaves us with the decision of what to do with that knowledge.
[/QUOTE]
I think this quote was intended to be inside the hypothetical of the OP. I don’t think cosmosdan is saying, “God demonstrates his existence,” but, rather, “Okay, let’s say that God demonstrates his existence.” It’s the subjunctive assumption of the OP. He isn’t contradicting himself; he’s “playing the game.” You err, I think, in accusing him of self-contradiction, when, instead, he’s accepting a premise he doesn’t actually believe in, “For the sake of argument.”
A lot of us here are atheists, and are still participating in the thread in this spirit.
That crossed my mind, but his question and following statement was this:
In his OP he gives various hypothetical experiences. Here he seems to be asking about the experiences people have actually claimed to have and his follow up sentence confirms it.
He’s being incredibly vague regarding what he does and doesn’t believe in this thread. He can still answer his own question that I asked him to since it was pointed toward unbelievers and he claims to be one of us. He makes contradictory statements regarding his belief at other points in this thread.
It sure sounds like he’s saying he has faith in God.
Whatever that means.
I’d still like him to answer his own question.
He’s clearly using a definition of “agnostic” in a way that is mutually exclusive to atheism, yet when Learjeff lists three definitions that aren’t mutually exclusive to atheism, he claims that’s what he meant.
He denies being an atheist. Is it because he claims to have faith right before he talks about the nature of God? Maybe, but he’s not being very clear. Because he also describes himself as someone that “used to be a believer.”
He claims he used to be a believer, defines an atheist as someone who believes in no deity at all, and then says I’m over-thinking it when I say that he’s an atheist.
Interestng. I think you have a point. To some religions and religious leaders God showing up would threaten their grasp on power and their manipulation of others.
Thanks; I think that if there is a something more than our limited physical life then reality is reality and it exists the same way for all of us and is acesseable to all of us. It’s not God as a separate being, creator and ruler of the universe, but rather God as the source we are all connected to snd how we are connected to each other. The Universal mind, heart, and consciousness if you will. It’s why mankind continues to strive and figure things out generation after generation.
I had an experience a little less than 20 years ago that took me from fearful and filled with anxiety and sorrow , to amazing understanding, accpetence and a profound serenity and peace, literally overnight. A vision , for lack of a better term. Hey, maybe it was just my brain releasing certain chemicals to deal with high stress, but the level of understanding and profound insight sure felt like a veil had been lifted and I had a glimpse of something more.
I don’t think I have. What I laid out was fairly simple. God is, God cares, and wants us to do better, and that’s what we know after whatever the event is. When you say,
you’re implying something about the God and his purpose, and then claiming he must be limited. I’m only pointing out another option for purpose that removes the limitation and still fits the OP.
Originally , my point was simply to show what another poster pointed out. That a God that rpoved he existed to individuals , as posters in the other thread were saying, wouldn’t be any different than what is going on today.
Then it evolved into God proving himslef to everyone at once with some all mankind spanning miricle. IMO, that would certainly shake things up temporarily , but IMO , given mankind’s nature, we would slip back to where we are now.
So then what. God continues to stay involved and answers questions? to what end , so we can better understand and maybe treat each other and our planet better as he suggested? Can’t we do that already?
I’m convinced that a lot of discussions about God boil down to what I’ve already listed and essentially, “what is the purpose of creation” I’m suggesting that perhaps it’s the experience of percieved duality and choice, and the process of choosing good over evil and love over fear and hate. If we ask God to intervene more , make understanding easier and quicker and his existence more demonstratable , we may be asking for the purpose of creation to be compromised.
“wants us to do better” does not follow god simply making himself known with an “I AM”. All we know is that there is a god. What he wants is not at all clear unless he is much more specific about what it is he expects of us.
I submit that we have no idea what he suggested, if anything. Otherwise… why, yes.
You must admit that we’ve been doing a piss poor job of it.
If the end goals is one and the same, where’s the harm in taking a short cut to the desired conclusion? Unless god doesn’t actually have a desired conclusion in mind. In which case, god is merely playing dice with the universe.
It is a distraction, because the OP is just a speculation up for discussion. Whether I’m a believer , agnostic , or atheist is fairly irrelevant. I mentioned it because these discussions can be confusing and people read posts that are more speculation as if it’s a personal assertion of belief.I’m not asserting any belief system as true. It’s specualtion for the sake of discussion. I thought identifying myself as an agnostic would make it clear that my statements about God were more speculation. Just a thought exercise within the discussion.
Also, for the sake of this discussion I wanted our knowledge of God to be limited. God, creator and sustaner of the Universe makes himself known and says “I exist, try to do better” Certain qualities being unknown rather than clearly defined were part of the exercise.
Last but not least. when someone does what MuleSkinner did and asserts I’m not what I claimed to be based on their faulty analysis of a fairly simple statement, I see a big red flag, and suspect that engaging them will descend into semantic quibbling over definitions which will amount to a highjack. My time to respond is limited and I didn’t want to go there.
Sorry, you don’t get to call my analysis faulty without me calling you on it. What was faulty about my analysis?
Your posts say otherwise. The moment others responded your posts got longer, amounting to a highjack of the OP, into a discussion about my personal beliefs and your overanalyzing nonsense
So I’m an Atheist and and a dishonest one.
Holy Shit man, You assumed that question applies to me because you asserted I was an atheist which is not true. You took a very simple statement and short sentence and applied your faulty analysis to it.
Since the first part says "I used to be a believer " then that means now you’re not one. NO it freakin doesn’t, because it’s s SIMPLE SHORT SENTENCE that includes "now I’m an agnostic. It’s so simple. I used to believe that God was a definate reality. God absolutely exists. Now , as an agnostic , I accept that maybe God exists, maybe he doesn’t, because there certainly isn’t any objective evidence that he does.
for crying out loud.
That’s within the game of the OP which is entirely speculation, it’s not an assertion of my personal belief.
You seriously over analyze and in a faulty way to boot. In another post you attributed a post to me that isn’t mine. I’m asking you, do not continue to highjack this thread with some half assed analysis of whether I’m an agnostic or an atheist. Participate in the OP or don’t participate.
If we try to square your conception of God with what you’re describing, then we’ve no choice but to conclude that either your conception of God is mistaken, or God is carrying out his work in a half-hearted, limited way. I base this conclusion on the following:
Item 4 could be the result of there not being a God, or a God that’s so subtle in its work that only a tiny fraction receive and obey the message. Take your pick.
Only if the proof was hopelessly mild and not accompanied by a message or command. Substantially proof convinces, and commands would be obeyed.
Knowing that, in fact, there is a God and it wants us to treat each other and our planet better, is a rather huge deal. I can’t understand why you think it’d be brushed off. We could anything “already”, but knowing that there’s a God who wants, perhaps even commands us to do it completely changes the equation.
Could I work harder at my job already? Sure! But when my boss reveals herself as supernatural being who created life and asks me to work harder, suddenly the incentives are completely different!
If that is, in fact, the purpose of creation, it seems incumbent on the creator to convey this purpose to the created, if the creator wants them to work toward this purpose. If I adopt a bunch of kids to start a basketball team, waiting for them to slowly decide on their own that I must have gathered them together to play basketball, then start practicing on their own with no feedback from me, is a profoundly inefficiently way to go about things. That seems to be the model for God as conceived of by several folks around here, a God that demands that we guess what he wants and then do it.
As for your beef with MuleSkinner, you should be aware if you aren’t already that being an agnostic and an atheist are not mutually exclusive, in the way that being a theist and an atheist is. When you call yourself an agnostic, that doesn’t rule out for anyone reading your words that you might also be an atheist. This is because agnosticism refers to knowledge (professing lack of knowledge of God’s existence, or that such knowledge is impossible to gain), and theism refers to belief (theism = belief in a God, atheism = the lack of belief in a God).
Combinations are possible:
An agnostic atheist doesn’t believe in God, and doesn’t know if one exists.
An agnostic theist believes in God, but doesn’t know if one exists.
You said you’re no longer a believer. Whether or not you label yourself an atheist is irrelevant in this instance. The question was for non-believers and you claim you are on of them.
Yes, it does.
You’re talking about knowledge in regards to your statements about agnosticism; it says nothing about what you believe. You accept that maybe God exists and maybe he doesn’t. So what? Atheists and theists often think the same thing, but that doesn’t mean they are not atheists or theists.
Earlier in the thread you asked “Isn’t the definition of athiest someone who believes in NO deity at all?” Fine, I’ll accept that definition. You also said “I used to be a believer.” How is it that you don’t label yourself as an atheist by your own definition?
Nonsense. I explained why in my last post. You said “Belief in God is already incredibly dominant in mankind.” That’s true now, so why not answer your own question?
If you don’t want me to ask about this anymore, don’t make bullshit statements about my analysis and then run away. What was faulty about my analysis?
No, you don’t get to tell me that when you say you’re no longer a believer it’s not the same thing as saying that you aren’t one, etc., and then tell me to shut up about it. You keep posting contradictions, and I’ll keep calling you on it. If you want me to stop talking about it, stop making the statements or you’re just as guilty of hijacking as I am.