/lit/ - Literature

evidence

>>4555718
belief is inaccessible from a position of disbelief. the transformation can be seen only in the very stupid and the divine

i am agnostic

you could get me to admit belief in god by changing the definition to that of Spinoza's

you could get me to admit disbelief if you claimed any specific outdated athropromorphised deity from yahweh to odin

>>4555736

if you have a belief in h, don't you by definition reject any evidence to the contrary of h? how, then, do you move from a belief in h to a belief in x?

what KIND-OF evidence would you require?

>>4555736
one doesn't believe in facts

>>4555752
conclusive physical evidence of a godly being
>>4555755
then, nothing

>>4555736
I would roll with this, but I think you want a more complex answer.

Conclusive evidence disproving or proving the existence of a deity would have gotten me at any point, including when I was religious. A large body of evidence that collectively pokes too many holes in the belief or lack of belief works just as well.

However, acknowledging the existence of God or a god isn't the same as considering it worthy of worship. If someone could show me that the Judeo-Christian God was real, omnipotent, and omnipresent, I would posit that the nature of reality means he is either malevolent or indifferent to humans and therefore not worthy of admiration of any kind.

>>4555756
But you can't ever really have conclusive evidence, Descartes proved that, and Hume buggered it further.

it doesn't matter. belief in another outside world distances you from taking part in this one. THIS life is the only one you know you have for sure so take part in it. every religion has some form of asceticism, denial of self.

i had a period of believing in some spirituality--it took a string of events that were just too coincidental--but after about 4 months i really couldn't be serious with myself and believe in that crap. all these spiritual people just talk forever and don't see anything. i have a fucking career and life to worry about and i need to focus my energy into making it not a boring piece of shit. the basic, everyday activities and responsibilities do not change whether or not there is "more."

>>4555759
...depending on your philosophy. This is why I put in the word physical, so you'd know I'm a physicalist.

>>4555763
I don't think Christianity has much denial of self

>>4555769
>This is why I put in the word physical, so you'd know I'm a physicalist.
>so you'd know I'm a physicalist.
>I'm a physicalist.

explain qualia

>>4555773
I can't but I don't think that invalidates my philosophy

such things are a big part of why I got into neuroscience

>>4555821
how does qualia not refute physicalism?

>>4555718
I am an atheist.

If I die, and an angel/buddha/Osiris/Hades/72 virgins come to shake my *hand* then I'll know there is a deity. If instead, I die and it's like eternal dreamless sleep, then I'll know ... nothing. Cause I'll be dead.

Until then the debate is useless because of the very nature of a God. Any physical evidence you provide against Him, I can say was programmed by Him, and vice versa.

>>4555718
>[A]ssuming you are an atheist, under what conditions could i get you to admit god's existence?
Verifiable evidence of a miracle

Book not really related.

>>4555770
Its fucking swimming in it, are you serious? Its founded on poverty and asceticism, denial of desire, Dostoevsky's 'holy fool', all in the name of some higher ideal (Heaven for some, for Dostoevsky it was love, for Kierkegaard it was Faith, etc).

>>4555827
"There awaits men when they die such things as they look not for nor dream of."
-Heraclitus

>>4555824
we don't know enough about the brain. I don't think it's an unanswerable problem. I would answer to Jackson that if Mary did truly learn everything about her own brain (note: Much much much much more than we currently know even about brains in general at this time), she WOULD know what her experience of color would be like. It's just that that level of understanding is hugely beyond our current grasp (thus I can't explain qualia) and that the whole notion is based on a possibly inaccurate assumption.

>>4555834

>verifiable evidence
>miracle

isn't there something of the phenomenological experience of the "miracle" that ruptures the need for "verifiable evidence"? aren't these two terms somehow incompatible?

what is a miracle if not that which CANNOT be verified through evidence?

Both belief and disbelief are forms of faith. The only factual conclusion one can make is some form of agnosticism. So the only conditions in which you could admit a certain belief/disbelief is if you held some form of faith.

>>4555846
Your writing is kind of obtuse but I agree entirely. If a miracle was observed and examined, it wouldn't be a miracle, just another scientific phenomenon.

>>4555824
Its hardly even a valid problem.

Subjective experiences are derived from prior subjective experiences that only you experience. Do we understand everything about consciousness? No, but to point to holes in knowledge and say that they refute the entire system means nothing is true.

Furthermore, the materialist ontology is the only one that has ever produced repeatable results and advances by bounds. Empiricism has gotten us further in 200 years than 2000 years of philosophy.

Supernaturalists might be right, but until you can conclusively prove it its hardly worth considering.

>>4555827
>I am an athiest

I meant to say agnostic.

>>4555857
Qualia is not a mere "hole in knowledge", it's a phenomenon that is completely beyond the scientific method.

Science can tell us what is, but it cannot tell what ought to be (utilitarianism, which I used to subscribe to, is based off of the idea that happiness is better than everything, a belief that is taken on complete faith).

>>4555718
I'm 100% sure I was touched by his noodly appendage. Ramen brother, God exists.

>>4555876
Any moral system is taken completely on faith because morality is relative, news at eleven.

Agnostic here, evidence. A really good, sound argument could convince me

>>4555876
>it's a phenomenon that is completely beyond the scientific method.
that guy and I would both say it's not. The current understanding of experience in the brain is highly lacking but I disagree that qualia is necessarily inexplicable.

people who tout qualia generally forget to prove how novel experience is NECESSARILY not predictable with complete data. I don't see how you can prove it, really.

>>4555881
but this doesn't work. What do you do when your neighbor tells you he's going to cut off his daughter's clit tomorrow?

>>4555750
Doesn't that just make you a Spinozist?

Also, isn't Spinozism just another way of reaching the idea of Logos/Dao?

>>4555884
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

People will poke holes in this, but everything in philosophy is open to criticism.

>>4555886
>novel experience is NECESSARILY not predictable with complete data.

Could you explain this a little more?

>>4555887
Does it offend my personal moral sensibilities in such a way as to make me intervene? Then I intervene.

The closest thing we have to a consensus on what is objectively right or wrong is the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

>>4555896
But if it offends your moral sensibilities, then you believe that you're right, and morality isn't subjective.

>>4555846
>>4555856
There are no miracles. But if Jesus were real, he should have "died" on the cross, come back from the dead, and STAYED on Earth. Preaching around the world, for all these two thousand years people have been worshiping his dead corpse.

But say he comes back today. Scientist asks for proof, Jesus makes the earth stand still for a day. Well, wow, every-fucking-body would say, scientists included. They'd be curious enough to wonder how it was done. Some might even have the effrontery to thinks this is just an alien trying to trick us all... Somehow it happened. Scientific explanation made or not, this is what the old timers called a miracle. Jesus is the real deal and he can bring people back from the dead etc.

>>4555893
okay so I'm talking again about Jackson's argument. The basis of his argument is that if Mary knew EVERYTHING about the brain and her own brain, she would still not be able to predict the way she would experience color for the first time.

My point is that this hinges on an assumption, I don't think you can prove that with complete data one could not predict novel experiences. Certainly I don't think it will ever be possible for a person to fully understand every physical aspect of their brain - down to precisely e.g. where each electron is in each cloud of each atom in each molecule within the system of their brain and what will be interacting with at the time they see a color...

but if you could know and process all of that? It's an absurd situation in the first place, it's a challenge to prove that someone in such a state couldn't predict how they'd experience color.

>>4555884

1. The universe is the most impressive creation
2. God created the universe
3. A creation is more impressive the more it's in contrast with its creator. For example, a master artist producing a sculpture is impressive, but a dog producing a sculpture is more so.
4. Therefore, a God which isn't omnipotent would yield a more impressive creation than a God which is omnipotent
5. A good less powerful than that would yield a more impressive universe, and so on
6. Ergo, God must either be non-existent or so insignificantly non-powerful that it doesn't even matter to give him notice.

This one holds just about as much water as any proof of God you'll find, mind you.

>>4555905
No, because I realize that other people have their personal moral sensibilities that are no less inherently wrong than mine.

Morality is, at its core, an emotional response to a situation, and those vary between individuals. Just because I find something abhorrent doesn't mean I'm objectively right.

>>4555915
I don't think "the universe must be as impressive as possible therefore God must be relatively unimpressive" is an argument. It's a fun little retort against people who use our world's complexity as an argument for a god's existence, but "the universe must be as impressive as possible" isn't exactly a cornerstone of their beliefs

>>4555938

Well think about it this way: is there a /more/ impressive creation than our universe? Obviously not, as our universe is everything, and something within it can't be more impressive than the thing itself. Therefore, if a more impressive universe exists, it must be the case that our universe is that.

Honestly, the best refutation I've heard of that argument was when people started arguing over whether or not you could say God "created" the universe in a linear cause->effect kind of way.

>>4555944
I'll give you some of that, but it relies heavily on your example of what "impressive" is. Power outweighs impressive-ness, it's contrary to your dog example. The artist creates a sweet sculpture, we're impressed, the artist had the power to create the sculpture. He has the power to do other things as well, making him less impressive on the basis of individual accomplishments but overall more deserving of respect than a dog who is more impressive BECAUSE he can't do anything else. I've intimately argued a lot of Catholics, and I can tell you their answer would be along the lines of power and respect > impressiveness. And that the point of a god isn't to impress us, but we should be impressed anyway, as a side effect.

>>4555968

I certainly don't think of it as a logically sound argument, precisely for the reason you mentioned: that it relies on what you think of as "impressive".

But really, any argument of this nature is going to have similar premises that you can affirm or deny and still not reach a contradiction.

>>4555944

But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most impressive *possible* universe. To an ant living in a cardboard box, the box is the most impressive thing imaginable. Not a perfect analogy but it holds up as far as the current point. Just because the universe ISN'T more random, doesn't mean it CAN'T be.

>>4555982
Agreed. It's just too fun to talk about

>>4555983
>To an ant living in a cardboard box, the box is the most impressive thing imaginable

This is a funny comment. Am I mistaken, or is that also an off-handed refutation of the ontological argument?

>>4555718

As a latter-day saint, you'd have to dispute the personal feelings and revelations I've received from the holy ghost. Such as, the verification I receive praying for an answer if the BoM is true or not.

>>4555990
It was so good I tweeted it
#Sorrynotsorry #actuallyyeasorry

>>4555718
If I could see what happened after someone died.

>>4555999

Based double trips.

There you go atheists. Undeniable proof that Mormonism is the one true faith.

>>4555990
It wasn't intended to be, but I see where you're coming from.

>>4556000

wat

>>4556002
Suck these quads
FSM be with me

>>4555999

>mfw I got dem trips

>>4555999

see, i find this a really interesting argument. please say more: how would you/can you explain this "connection" to the holy ghost? how was it first induced? how often?

as a reasonable human being, are there any other explanations you could ever entertain for the experience of this phenomenon?

i guess what i am in part asking: though i believe entirely that you genuinely experience this connectedness, why is it to the holy ghost IN PARTICULAR? could it be another god--or not a god at all?

>>4556006
You heard me oldfag. Boutta cut yourself on my edge

>>4556013

How Can Ants Be Real If Our Cardboard Boxes Aren't Real?

>>4555999
>>4556000

999-000 back to back?

evidence of a miracle for you naysayers? there is a surely a god in this thread.

>>4556017
If it were 333 or even 777 I'd honestly consider it.

>>4555915
God is said to be both the "Alpha and the Omega"
The Beginning and the End. To me, I can interpret this as meaning both the most powerful and amazing thing ever to be, and absolute nothingness. Both omnipotent and utterly powerless. All there ever will be and all there ever won't be.

So I guess with this line of thought, the creation of the Universe would be both the greatest feat to ever be done, and also the most trivial one.

There's also "the word emet (אמת meaning "truth"), one of the names of God in Judaism, which has been interpreted as consisting of the first, middle and final letters of the Hebrew alphabet."

>>4556013
>HURRRR FUCKEN DURRR IM POSTEN ON 4CHAN LOOK AT ME

>>4556017

Yup. You caught me. When I get bored, I watch the humans argue about religion, and subtly influence seemingly random things to see if they'll notice.

Oh well, back to arguing with Satan about the gays. The bastard won't give 'em back. Assholes made hell better looking than heaven.

Well you would have to erase the entire known history of Yahweh as an ancient Israelite war diety in a pantheon with a wife, and you would have to find a way to make an omnipotent and all loving god creating something like hell and then killing a few hundred thousand or million people directly for shit he knew they were gonna do legitimatey forever before setting them in motion not sound entirely butt-fucking retarded.

I'll be waiting.

I will believe in God if, and only if, this post is dubs.

This doesn't belong on /lit/.

>>4556011

>connection to the holy ghost
The holy ghost is constantly communicating with our spirit. You feel its presence right in the core of your stomach and it spreads to the rest of your body.

I was first introduced to the Holy Ghost after reading the BoM (Book of Mormon) for the first time. I didn't feel quite the presence of the spirit as strong as I do now until I was properly baptized. I can feel him around others and I can feel him around me... and I can also feel his presence slip away when I'm doing things I really shouldn't be doing.

One of the most important functions of the Holy Ghost is to testify of the Father and the Son. In the very day that the angel told Adam that the sacrifice he was offering was “a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, … the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam” testifying to him of the Father and the Son.

>Any other explanations?
Not that I can think of. I'm a convert. I've never felt anything like this before in my life. I've seen grown men cry from being so overwhelmed with the spirit in their lives.

>Why is it to the holy ghost in particular? Could it be another god?
The godhead consists of our Heavenly Father (God), Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. They are all separate entities. The Holy Spirit reveals and teaches the truth of all things, whether it's the truth of the BoM or the truth that maybe you shouldn't take a left today on your way to work... take a right instead.

>>4555917
But that's what morality is, by definition. Thinking you're right.

>>4555983
To an ant living in a cardboard box, the box is the most impressive thing imaginable.

But we can see that the edges of the universe are not walls. They are literally the end of all existence.

>>4555888
Spinoza denies God is a creator. I am agnostic about whether there was a creator god which is usually what people mean when they ask about theism.

>>4556229

Different guy, but you're missing the point. He isn't saying we're literally in a gigantic box (I hope), but that what we're seeing isn't necessarily all there is to see.

>>4556108
Daily Reminder that mormons are basically scientologists and are the original new agers. You'll realize members of both of the two aforementioned cult groups will testify the same thing as the anon I am quoting here about their anecdotal experiences.

>assuming you are agnostic
>implying this exists

>assuming you are an atheist, under what conditions could i get you to admit god's existence?

Define god, then prove it.

>>4555773
I don't understand why people asserting qualia expect scientists to disprove an unproven conjecture. Lazy fucks.

>>4555718
as an atheist, if you gave me a large sum of money, I'd admit that anything you want exists

>>4556286
heh

>>4556266
>>4556266

Scientology is clearly a cult, you can see that just from how they conduct themselves. How is Christianity a cult though?

"You will know them by the fruit of their labors"

What kind of fruit do you bear?

>>4556318
Whether or not I believe christianity is a cult is not the issue at hand. The point is Mormonism is clearly the OG new age/scientology movement. With your billion dollar temples and your crazy heavens and weird leader.

>>4556277
Dear god
I hope this poster is a troll
god damn
amen

>>4556318
I think that organized religion is bad. But personal religion is good. It is as Kierkegaard said. "The crowd is untruth."

>>4556328
>>4556328

"Mormonism" IS Christianity though.

More people than ever are reading the BoM and praying on its truth. The temple is an amazing place and I hope you get the opportunity to check it out sometime.

>>4556341
This reminds me of telemarketing scripts. Lets see some non-biased verification there, buddy. By the way, I have some fingerboxes to sell you.

>>4556364

No script man. I'm a convert and I'm telling you this is the real deal.

>>4556369
I could probably find a dozen blogs from swedish girls saying the same things about islam, and this website is still active:

http://heavensgate.com/

>>4556376

"Fruits of their labors"

Niggas be cutting heads off

>>4556229
>But we can see that the edges of the universe are not walls. They are literally the end of all existence.

>this is what pseudo-intellectuals actually believe

bump

>>4555770
read almost anything that Nietzsche said about Christianity.
As much as i disagree with his other critiques this one does stick, self sacrifice and the denial of self are central to christians

>>4555718
is im agnostic it doesn't mean that i can't be a religious agnostic

>>4555718
>assuming you are an atheist, under what conditions could i get you to admit god's existence?

If you showed me proof of a phenomenal God (burning bush, lightning hammers, booming voices out of the void), then yeah, you proved to me a powerful entity that might incorporate mechanics that could be "outside" or even "transcendental" to our understanding.

But I'd ask you, "Why the fuck are you taking anything that this being does or says at face value? You wouldn't trust a sociopath or a psychopath at face value and they have roughly the same monkey brain as you do. SO WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU DERIVING VALUES AND ETHICS FROM THIS ALL POWERFUL SHADY FUCK? You know nothing of its psychology, mechanics, intentionality, or goals. Fuck off you wanker."

Well I guess it started off as a question but I guess for me it has to end in "Fuck off you wanker."

>>4555718
>under what conditions could i get you to admit god's existence?
I would say show me god exists, but even then I'd just imagine I was having an hallucination. Go back in time and raise me as a religious person. That'd probably do it.

>>4556222

There's a difference between

I'm right but it could change based on experience and evolving evaluations.

and

I'm right because goat fuckers wrote it in a book.

Now goat fuckers might have some good bits and been good observers of psychology that holds true today but for an intelligent man, it doesn't hold true for all potential situations and types of goals for all eternity.

Evidence, plain and simple

absolutely nothing is known about what happens when you die. You can believe or not believe in anything you feel like but at the end of the day its completely useless to debate it as its a question that will never be answered because it cannot possibly be answered.

>>4558820
*if

also god's non-existence isn't provable even theoretically

>>4558886

So is the non-existence of an infinity of coherent axiomatic systems of mechanics that could contradict any human decisional value in regards to "What should I do with my life" or "What is the meaning to strive for myself?".

If you're "agnostic", you're either waiting for a burning bush (schmuck) or you're functionally an atheist.

I didn't think agnostic was a religious position. I fail to understand how it is some halfway point between atheism and belief.

I consider myself atheist but to me that doesn't mean I'm certain there is/are no god/s. I guess some people would call me agnostic atheist, but I've always considered atheism necessarily agnostic (ie it can't prove there is no god, just considers its existence incredibly unlikely).

As to op's question, I don't think there is any possible way to convince me of the divine, and that's the entire point (and beauty I guess) of faith; it doesn't inhabit the realm of scientific enquiry. It's a human experience, based on human emotions.

>>4558930
>I've always considered atheism necessarily agnostic (ie it can't prove there is no god, just considers its existence incredibly unlikely)

but it is not. just because you cannot prove something it doesn't mean that you should think of it as of incredibly unlikely

>>4558930
there are people who call themselves gnostic atheists, granted they are rare
>agnostic
agnosticism isn't directly related to belief/disbelief. You can look at it as everything between the two gnostic poles or as a separate axis (when separating belief or fervor if you'd like from it, conscious sureness)

>>4558966
>just because you cannot prove something it doesn't mean that you should think of it as of incredibly unlikely
Of course you can. I can frame it as a reverse to your statement: Just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean that you should think of it as likely. If the existence of god cannot be proved, and you consider what faith really is (the human effort to understand and make sense of the universe, the human response to what we see and experience), then it seems pretty logical that a god most likely doesn't exist in the sense that it is something in the universe that can be discovered. Since a god might be closer to a 'system' or 'model' for understanding and moral behaviour rather than something actually inhabiting the universe, then there isn't any demonstrable way of proving its existence in a scientific way. Even if you take generally accepted definitions of God, there still isn't any quantitative method of proving it to be real. When you take all this into consideration, logic points to a pretty obvious answer, but this answer can't be derived solely from scientific enquiry. Hence it can't God can't be proven/disproven, but nonetheless seems unlikely.

>>4559031
Hence God*

Don't know what happened there.

>>4555718
Dude I'm inclined towards solipsism, I just plain don't give a fuck.

>>4559031
>it seems pretty logical

maybe for you, because you substitute logic with personal preferences. logic isn't some magic wand which can allow you to estimate the probability of unfalsifiable conceptions (inb4 occam razor doesn't estimate the probability, it estimate the current practical usefulness), what you call logic it's your system of beliefs and "common sense" (which is a system of beliefs itself). so you basically claim that your opinion is logical because you believe in it

>>4559055
Solipsism is fucking retarded and no one thinks you are clever you dumb fourteen year old queer

>>4559087
Shit, I need to sharpen up my game if that's the best response I can think of.

>>4555718
As usual proof that god does exist. But I would want to know why do I want to believe in him with or without evidence. Is he worth worshipping?

But I am a gnostic so I do believe he exists, he is just a petty malevolent tyrant

>>4560018
>e is just a petty malevolent tyrant
I was with you up until this. It's not the superpowered's fault it's superpowered, everything had to fall somewhere on the statistical variants available.

>>4560018
If you're given proof, it's no longer faith.

>>4560023
It is not about how much power he has but how he uses it.

>>4560032
I retract my first sentence but the point of my post was whether I want to or should believe/ have faith in him.

>>4560074
I suppose one argument for his magnanimity would be the freedom we feel we're allowed. If we were just wind up toys in a box, nothing would have any value

>>4560032
I don't understand why faith is so important. It seems deceptive in a way.

>>4555718
Such dumb questions.

>>4555718

I am an atheist

A god speaking to me directly would be sufficient enough.

>>4560097
you keep showing how fucking retarded you are

faith and belief are no things you can base on facts, not when they're referring to something outside out universe

how fucking hard is it for you people to understand?

People seek god based on the rationalization that this universe that we live in is too complex and fragile to "just be" without agency. That's all. Nobody is going to fucking make an experiment to proove something outside this plane of existence.

>>4555718
>assuming you are a theist, under what conditions could i get you to admit god's non-existence?
under no circumstances is the correct answer probably.
Nobody said falsifiability is a necessary condition for something to be true. It is only part of the method and the process of finding truth
In other words god is not something that "may not exist" but "happens to exist", so that the question of falsifiability is even meaningful.

But what you can do is disprove certain opinions or assumptions about god. Certainly you can do that.

>>4555718
Well, as an atheist (the fedora is tipped) I think I would need:
a) Good evidence of the existence of god that doesn't rely on simply faith in order to truly accept. It wouldn't necessarily need to be physical evidence (though that'd be pretty amazing), it could a different way of thinking that makes the idea of a divine or supernatural power or being to exist in our reality.

b) A good argument in favor of faith. If you can't provide me with evidence for some deity, then try to explain it's better to believe in a god with no evidence to back it up.

>>4560305
>belief are no things you can base on facts
A philosophically malnourished person detected. Look into Philosophy of Language, especially Propositional Attitudes. And stop associating 'belief' with religious kind of belief; that will make you appear less retarded.

>>4560697
he is obviously referring to religious belief you mongrel

>>4560694
Physical evidence: The empty tomb of jesus, as claimed by many scholars and thoroughly explained

off the top of my google search skills

The early Christians began preaching Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem. We know this to be the case due to the numerous references in the Gospels to the preaching in Jerusalem (cf. Lk. 24:47), the book of Acts, and Paul's undisputed letters such as Galatians 1-2 where the church is headquartered in Jerusalem. Christianity would have had an extremely difficult time being able to survive in Jerusalem with this apostolic preaching if the body of Jesus had still been in the tomb.

Second, there is the enemy testimony (or enemy attestation) (E). In other words, the early critics of Christianity indirectly presuppose the empty tomb (see Mt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30).3 For example, in Matthew 28:12-13, the Jews acknowledge the empty tomb by stating that the disciples stole the body, “And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,13and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.'”

Third, there is the testimony of women (T). The women are the first and chief witnesses of the empty tomb. Due to the lack of respect for women in first century Jewish culture, it is extremely unlikely that if the empty tomb was a myth that the apostles would appeal to women as the chief witnesses to that myth. Instead, they would appeal to men as their primary witnesses. Even in the gospel of Luke the empty tomb and the appearance of Jesus to the women is seen as “nonsense” by the disciples (Lk. 24:10-11).

>A good argument in favor of faith.
How about ultimate hope for justice for mankind?
How about the ability to cope with the suffering and pain that you go through in life - before which many shun the existence of god because all was well for them and they could claim they were in charge -
How about the fact that atheism, beyond denying christianity, is pointless and is purely a kneejerk reaction like a kid saying proove it, that is just as close minded as a person that was born blind not believing people that lost their sight that colors exist, even though this analogy is flawed and I took it out of my ass as im in a hurry?
How about the fact that this is the conclusion that many famous scientists who advanced humanity presented at the end of their lives?

It's so easy to give arguments for theism and for christianity in particular it's not even funny. I find the people who never grow out of their atheistic phase from teenage years are hedonists, people who still have life too good to consider the issue of human suffering and pain, or manchildren.

>>4559031
this type of word turning and pretending you know how logic works when you're obviously making an asshat out of yourself clearly shows you're too stupid for theism

Simply because of the nature of the universe and creation I grew out of atheism. You either stay in that mentality from your teen years that "there's no such thing if there isn't physical proof" or you look at the world and admit that you're not anybody to draw any conclusions.

I struggle with my christian belief every day but it's worth it as it allows me to cope with losing family members to cancer and allows me to try and be a better person. It doesn't mean I stop asking questions, but it also does not mean I put on horse shoes and refuse to admit the possibility for things outside of my perception or understanding.

Tl;dr; atheists in the true sense of the word are retards

>>4555718
>assuming you are agnostic, under what conditions could i get you to admit in a certain belief/disbelief in god?
Good question, I guess, 'cause it is hard to answer.

I guess that making be belief would be slightly easier that making me disbelief. For the record, I am agnostic because God is not part of creation. As such s/he is outside of my judgement. If s/he'd be part of creation you'd get the deus sive natura thing. Which doesn't really help either.

Nothing short of a miracle I guess.

>>4560114

Am i asking the wrong question? what would be a better one?

>>4560839
What do you understand do be God?

>>4560745
You sure are upset.

>>4560754
What a ridiculous idiotic post.

>assuming you are a theist, under what conditions could i get you to admit god's non-existence?

all the people around the world have started to commit suicide, extinguish of all the human population is a matter of minutes; glory, money, and power have lost their sweet flavor faced with case and nonsense of life.

>>4559081
>because you substitute logic with personal preferences.
No, i don't substitute it for anything. By logic I mean just that, nothing else. You have absolutely no reason for thinking I substitute it for personal preference.

>>4555773
Qualia are physical objects. There u go

>>4555915
First of all, this all argument is composed of ill-defined terms and ambiguous statements, it should't be taken seriously. But that aside, I'll give one of many possible refutations.

>3. A creation is more impressive the more it's in contrast with its creator. For example, a master artist producing a sculpture is impressive, but a dog producing a sculpture is more so.
If impressiveness was a property of creation, you could take the creation and evaluate its impressiveness without knowing of the creation.
That shows that what you are actually talking about is not the impressiveness of creation, but that of _the feat of the creating_. That renders other arguments wrong. There is obvious circularity.

>>4560857

are you suggesting that the criterion for the question hinges on how you define god?

the definition should be inconsequential; the point being: what would move you to adopt a different worldview?

>>4564118
Explain physical

Explain object

>OP starts the thread with the continuing idiotic-parroting of putting Agnosticism on the same plane as Atheism/Theism -- and, further, that it's a middle-man/mutually-exclusive
>123 posts

It will never get better. People will continue to think Agnosticism is a middle-road.

Horrible.

>>4565965

if it is wrong to treat it as a middle road, what do you propose instead?

great thread mate but maybe a little too much best stick to posting your book collection in a thread every six months

>>4565928
Explain life

>philosophy

aaaaaah

>>4565983
Atheism and Theism; there, done.

There is no middle-road: there is, and there isn't. It comes down to positive or negative affirmations. I know, I know, there are people who don't like to be labeled Atheist because of social-stigma; but, enough intellectual-cowardice.

It's funny that people use Agnosticism as a sole identifier, yet, I never, EVER see people do the same with Gnosticism -- perhaps because people who know what Gnostic means don't just toss it around.

I don't believe in God, but if I can find a good Catholic church that practices the tridentine liturgy I'll get baptised and attend until I get bored. Catholicism is really interesting, and I love all of the paraphernalia, rituals and prayers. I also really like the idea of the transcendent, and I think it would be a good thing to subject myself to a set of arbitrary beliefs and practices.

>>4566100

>I know, I know, there are people who don't like to be labeled Atheist because of social-stigma

This isn't the only reason some people tend towards agnosticism you arrogant little prat.

>>4566134
There's many gods who you must believe in or suffer consequences. No one is agnostic towards these.

There are some who are defined all willy nilly. Its fine to be agnostic towards those.

someone needs to invent a religion specifically for writers. i think the fear of everlasting pain, loneliness, and desperation could finally convince me to finish a story.

>assuming you are an atheist, under what conditions could i get you to admit god's existence?
I have a hard time even caring about it, you get God to show up you got my attention, anything other than that happens, discussion over.

>>4566118
If you just want to see ritual and symbolism at work, Catholicism or Orthodoxy are your best bets; both Churches have traditions and rituals that date back literally thousands of years.

Also, both Churches have the advantage of being truly universal, unlike many Protestant denominations. Whether you're in Tokyo or Milan or Chicago or Buenos Aires, you can go to a Catholic or Orthodox Church each Sunday and hear the very same readings, and see the very same practices, that you would see at every other church around the world. The only difference will be the homilies the priests give.