Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Dorisy girl is Cosmic Doris
I dont know her name and get tired of typing Cosmic Doris

lol I hate my username (it's an old high school injoke)

just call me bec

 

[*TRUE*]

lol I hate my username (it's an old high school injoke)

just call me bec

Okay.

 

[puglover]

speak of does God really exist...
i need to learn more about Christianity for a Year 12 subject.
any recommendations on resources?

(LOL turns out i'll be doing some high school subjects aswell as doing uni part time next year! =D maybe.. 0.o' actually i have no idea what i am doing next year. )

 

[*TRUE*]

speak of does God really exist...
i need to learn more about Christianity for a Year 12 subject.

You can probably ask here , i am a Christian , and there are a few around....
Dont know how prompt the answers will be though...

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Actually I have a question which I will try to word as well as I can, apologies for confusion that will probably result

I just want to know what the concensus of the Christians in this thread is on fundamental Christianity. By which I mean, people who take the Bible from cover to cover as being literally correct and live accordingly. You know, a person who'd denounce Harry Potter because it portrays witchcraft.

They seem crazy (and it's my opinion that they mostly are) but is there any merit to a totally inflexible view of Christianity? Or a better question might be how far can you take literal belief in the Bible before it starts to become problematic? Or does it?

edit: by problematic I am talking about scenarios in which someone starts to use their beliefs to justify acts of violence or refuses to let their daughter use the pill for non-contraceptive purposes simply because it is a contraceptive, for example.

 

[*TRUE*]

Actually I have a question which I will try to word as well as I can, apologies for confusion that will probably result

I just want to know what the concensus of the Christians in this thread is on fundamental Christianity. By which I mean, people who take the Bible from cover to cover as being literally correct and live accordingly. You know, a person who'd denounce Harry Potter because it portrays witchcraft.

They seem crazy (and it's my opinion that they mostly are) but is there any merit to a totally inflexible view of Christianity? Or a better question might be how far can you take literal belief in the Bible before it starts to become problematic? Or does it?

Hey Bec
Ill try to reply a bit later , i have to get back to work...

 

[Enteebee]

Wait..Kfunk cannot be an atheist...Im sure he must be an agnostic (who leans toward atheism)

Maybe. What if he were to say he was as agnostic about God as he is fairies, would you consider him an 'atheist' or an 'agnostic'.

 

[katie tully]

Pretty sure KFunk said he is definitely atheist.

 

[*TRUE*]

Maybe. What if he were to say he was as agnostic about God as he is fairies, would you consider him an 'atheist' or an 'agnostic'.

Agnostic.

 

[*TRUE*]

What about you Chadd?

 

[Kwayera]

Well to be fair, as I think of it most of us atheists truly are agnostics, as we cannot prove the existence of God either way. So theoretically we are agnostics, but functionally we are atheists.

It's sort of like this: you are atheist about the existence of fairies at the bottom of your garden because you do not believe they are there, but in reality, you are agnostic about it, because you can't prove they are there or not.

Does that make any sense?

 

[*TRUE*]

Well to be fair, as I think of it most of us atheists truly are agnostics, as we cannot prove the existence of God either way. So theoretically we are agnostics, but functionally we are atheists.

It's sort of like this: you are atheist about the existence of fairies at the bottom of your garden because you do not believe they are there, but in reality, you are agnostic about it, because you can't prove they are there or not.

Does that make any sense?

Yep , absolutely! Thats what i thought too. Its atheists ( those who i imagine have something concrete to disprove God)that I take issue with

 

[Enteebee]

I'm an atheist, but by your definition... an agnostic. TBH I think your definition is a useless distraction.

 

[Kwayera]

Yep , absolutely! Thats what i thought too. Its atheists ( those who i imagine have something concrete to disprove God)that I take issue with

But why? It's not like you have any concrete proof to the contrary

 

[*TRUE*]

But why? It's not like you have any concrete proof to the contrary

You are absolutely right.

 

[Ennaybur]

Yep , absolutely! Thats what i thought too. Its atheists ( those who i imagine have something concrete to disprove God)that I take issue with

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.

idk, I think it's valid to call yourself an atheist if you don't believe in God because there's no proof/reason to. Otherwise we are all (like chadd said) 'agnostic' about everything in life, from fairies to God.

edit:

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people[1], using 'agnostic' in the newer sense of 'noncommittal'[2].

imo the people here are pretty committed to the stance that there is no reason to believe that there is a God. Like any rational person, they would gladly change their mind if/when proof arose.

 

[*TRUE*]

I'm an atheist, but by your definition... an agnostic. TBH I think your definition is a useless distraction.

My definition is the correct one.
An atheist disbelieves in God.
Either they disbelieve out of faith , or the disbelieve out of proof to the contrary.
An agnostic doesnt think there is proof either way.

 

[Kwayera]

But I think one can be agnostic and atheist simultanously - for example, I cannot PROVE there is no god (agnostic) but I also don't BELIEVE there is one (atheist).


Also,
http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/Veritas_Vos_Liberabit.PNG

 

[*TRUE*]

But I think one can be agnostic and atheist simultanously - for example, I cannot PROVE there is no god (agnostic) but I also don't BELIEVE there is one (atheist).


Also,
http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/Veritas_Vos_Liberabit.PNG

I agree , and by the same token i can acknowledge that i cannot PROVE there is a God and BELIEVE there is one.

 

[Ennaybur]

My definition is the correct one.
An atheist disbelieves in God.
Either they disbelieve out of faith , or the disbelieve out of proof to the contrary.
An agnostic doesnt think there is proof either way.

um. Hi there... ?


edit: read my post plz.

edit edit: you can't just redefine things kthx. Keep in mind the etymology and this:

The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion.[11] With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists.