I have also clearly stated what I believe in about afterlife.
I’ve always been confused with that response, when I’m asked do I believe in god and I say, no, I’m atheist and then get the response “But you must believe in something!” - well, yes, of course, I believe in many things :), it’s just a question of the subject we are talking about :D.
(I believe, for example, that lingq should put up Arabic as soon as they can, rather than any other language 
)
@dooo “So on what level is there “not a slightest doubt” about the non-existence of a deity?”
I’m not sure what you are asking here because I said this:
“I do not have a slightest doubt about my beliefs” (maybe it was my English, the point was - I know clearly what I believe in, I know what I feel, I do not question my self at all every time when I’m asked “do you believe in god?”). hope it’s clearer now.
Aineko,
I suggest a reexamination of the nature of belief.
If you take a position and say “I am sure about my belief in this”, you must have a sense-- a hunch— that there some kind of shared, communicate-able, dare I say objective, line of reasoning for it. Otherwise what is the point of talking about it to others? If you say you DO have this sense but at the same time you actually don’t have a clue, well I assert that it is a contradictory statement.
BTW, the only reason I pointed out that you were not expressing postive statements about your beliefs is that you implied that agnostics were not positive about their beliefs on the god question. I believe true agnostics do not consider it a meaningful question. It is trivial, like asking a farmer what time the tide came in.
I understand what dooo is saying. I was quite impressed by what he said, actually.
Even though you and Friedemann are supposedly atheists, neither of you has given any compelling reasons to be an atheist. Then again, Dawkins doesn’t impress me…
I could discuss the Bible with you at length, but it’s important to see that the Bible allows people to have a unified lifeview. It’s also important to note that your thoughts (about what happened to the people who were annihilated by the Hebrews) are the product of a viewpoint which doesn’t include an omnipotent God.
If God exists and He is the God of the Jews in the Old Testament, he can do whatever He pleases. He is God. He can be merciful or not. The New Testament indicates that God is capable of mercy. Just because people live in a different era doesn’t mean God (if He exists) changes to suit current trends in political correctness.
If God doesn’t exist for you, why does it matter what ancient tribal peoples clashed and murdered in the fight for land domination?
So, are you trying to convince me that God is a meanie misogynist from time immemorial, so I’ll become an atheist or may I gently ask if it is a bit more like a laundry list of complaints about religious people in general because some of them want to teach the creation story in school?
I’m not particularly interested in the Evolution or Creation Story debate. It’s just boring to me. The evidence for the evolutionists’ point of view isn’t particularly compelling to me and the best Creationist viewpoints (articulated by physicists) are almost beyond my understanding.
" If you say you DO have this sense but at the same time you actually don’t have a clue, well I assert that it is a contradictory statement. "
well, it does not seem contradictory to me, maybe as a consequence of a practice of scientific writing where you have to be very, very careful about what you state. Let’s try like this:
so, we are talking about actual (physical?) existence of god, independent from my hunch and my beliefs. Can I (or anyone else) say “I know that god does not exist.”? I don’t think so, since there are no empirical evidences for any of the two possibilities. Are the empirical evidences all I believe in? No. I do not believe IN empirical evidences, I believe TO empirical evidences. However, there are things in this world that are out of reach of empirical sciences and for these we can only talk about believing IN. I wrote post on the topic about a ‘terrifying thought’ explaining why existence of god is not a scientific question. And, yes, for me, question of knowing, question of certainty is a question of empirical proofs. However, I’m not saying that this world consists only of matters of knowing, at the contrary, there are many aspects of human life that are a matter of personal taste or belief, completely unrelated to science. And so, my hunch about god is all I can talk about and since we are talking about hunch, I can only talk about belief, not certainty. So, yes, I don’t have a clue about actual existence of god, there are no empirical evidences neither for nor against. But I know what I believe in and I know where my belief is coming from (to many contradictions in religions, inability of religions to explain the world around us and so on - none of them being an actual empirical evidence of the actual nonexistence of the god almighty - maybe people just misunderstood him ).
" I believe true agnostics do not consider it a meaningful question. It is trivial, like asking a farmer what time the tide came in."
you are saying that true agnostics consider it an irrelevant question? I can understand this if we are talking about deism - belief that god creator created matter/energy and physical law and left the things to take it’s course. In such case even I am an agnostic. However, if we are talking about theism (and on this topic we obviously did since we were talking about sensu stricto theistic religions), where god is actively interfering in human lives, how can a question of existence of such god be considered irrelevant?
@ Mait
" neither of you has given any compelling reasons to be an atheist. "
well, maybe not compelling for you, but my reasons are quite compelling for me (I’ve just explained them in my last post).
“If God doesn’t exist for you, why does it matter what ancient tribal peoples clashed and murdered in the fight for land domination?”
it matters to me for a very practical reason: the book where it is written in (and some other books as well) has great influence on everyday life of many, many people. (and, btw, when people murder each other - that matters to me. human suffering, especially the unnecessary one, matters to me a lot).
“So, are you trying to convince me that…”
no, I was just explaining how I see these things.
Aineko
You seem to say “there are many aspects of human life that are a matter of personal taste or belief” by which you justify your certainty in your belief that there is no god. On the other hand you said that alongside is Science, the “very precise” writing in which you are trained in, and your argument turns on the usage and interpretation of a prepostion. I call BS. I think you and Rorh both substitute Science for God, for most intents and purposes.
It is also quite easy for an agnostic to think the question of an active, omnipotent dei(ies) as irrelevant.
@Mait
"Even though you and Friedemann are supposedly atheists, neither of you has given any compelling reasons to be an atheist. " Again, if you find them compelling or not only you can say, to me they are very compelling and I’ll re-state them here briefly:
Our current understanding of the universe is much more compatible with the non-existence of God than with the existence of God.
As a species facing enormous challenges on our fragile home planet, we stand a much better chance to solve these problems based on scientific reasoning than based on religious beliefs.
I disagree with Aineko when she says that the question of God’s existence is beyond science. If God were to truly interact with us and the universe as the bible says he does, we could detect him by experiments. God could reveal himself unambiguously if he wanted. God could be an alien super-advanced intelligence fully operating inside the laws of the universe that we may not fully understand yet. All that are fully legitimate scientific questions.
Forbes wrote:
"Aineko
You seem to say “there are many aspects of human life that are a matter of personal taste or belief” by which you justify your certainty in your belief that there is no god. On the other hand you said that alongside is Science, the “very precise” writing in which you are trained in, and your argument turns on the usage and interpretation of a prepostion. I call BS. I think you and Rorh both substitute Science for God, for most intents and purposes.
It is also quite easy for an agnostic to think the question of an active, omnipotent dei(ies) as irrelevant."
Actually I have no idea what you’re saying here…
“You seem to say “there are many aspects of human life that are a matter of personal taste or belief” by which you justify your certainty in your belief that there is no god. On the other hand you said that alongside is Science, the “very precise” writing in which you are trained in, and your argument turns on the usage and interpretation of a prepostion. I call BS.”
well, you can call it however you want, it is for me a matter of precisely expressing yourself. Simply: all my beliefs are based on something (my affinities, my way of thinking, the information I have at that moment…), but not all my beliefs concern the questions that can be scientifically proven or dis-proven and therefore, for me, not based on certainty and knowing. existence of god is one of them. what is contradictory in that?
“I think you and Rorh both substitute Science for God, for most intents and purposes.”
what? now it’s my turn to be confused :). how can I substitute science (which tends to explain the world around us) for god (which tends to create and rule the world around us)? yes, I believe that scientific method, however faulty it might be, is the best thing we came up with when it comes to tackling certainty. However, science is absolutely useless if you want to answer a question, for example, “what is the best candy in the world?” (science can only tell you what is the best selling one, but what is the best one will always be a question of taste).
"It is also quite easy for an agnostic to think the question of an active, omnipotent dei(ies) as irrelevant. "
cool. I’d just like an explanation how is it possible in a situation when, e.g., someone says to that agnostic: “you shouldn’t have sex before marriage because that’s what god wants”.
@ Friedemann
“I disagree with Aineko when she says that the question of God’s existence is beyond science.”
the question of the existence of the god almighty, the absolute lord of absolutely everything (which is quite different from the alien super-power race ) is not a scientific question - he always might be somewhere we might not be able to look. (but what inspired our ancestors to invent the god almighty - that certainly is a scientific question).
“God could reveal himself unambiguously if he wanted.”
well, once he does that, he will become a scientific question. until then he stays out of science :D.
Aineko
to draw an analogy between the question about your favourite candy and about the existance of a deity is a stretch, to put it mildly… and my suggestion that you venerate science is simply because you (and roehr) seem to put it beyond the mundane in your discourse
also agnostics can easily ignore the god aspect of a no sex before marriage rule by just seeing it as an excuse to keep people in line
“to draw an analogy between the question about your favourite candy and about the existance of a deity is a stretch, to put it mildly…”
they share one thing: both are non-scientific questions. so, where is the stretch if you talk about it from the perspective I talked about it? it may be the stretch for someone for whom the existence of god is very important and for me that is not the case (what is important for me are the consequences of people’s beliefs).
"and my suggestion that you venerate science is simply because you (and roehr) seem to put it beyond the mundane in your discourse "
and yet it cannot answer a simple, mundane question “what is the best candy in the world?” ? :). Science has it’s place in this world, as do the non-scientific matters (and both can concern everyday and non-everyday questions).
“also agnostics can easily ignore the god aspect of a no sex before marriage rule by just seeing it as an excuse to keep people in line”
in other words - by not believing that it really comes from some god? how many such conclusions are needed to say that such agnostic actually does not believe that there is some god which interferes with daily life?
Aineko,
“The question of the existence of the god almighty, the absolute lord of absolutely everything (which is quite different from the alien super-power race ) is not a scientific question - he always might be somewhere we might not be able to look.”
I agree that God Almighty could always hide somewhere if he wanted to but that is not the engaging interacting God discribed in the Bible. So if the bible is right, I would expect God to show up more often. I also think that for us humans a super advanced alien intelligence might be indistinguishable from God Almighty.
Friedemann
“If God were to truly interact with us and the universe as the bible says he does, we could detect him by experiments. God could reveal himself unambiguously if he wanted.”
I agree, IF He wanted to do this, but
Friedemann, if there is an omnipotent God, He knows everything about you and the universe. How would you set up an experiment that would force Him to reveal Himself?
Throughout the centuries many people have said that they have felt the presence of God. The NT indicates that God is near to people who seek him. I suppose if your proposed experiment is the classic “If you’re there, let me know somehow” prayer, that would be an experiment of sorts, but if it is a real scientific experiment, God doesn’t have to participate because He is neither butler nor bellboy.
If God doesn’t wish to reveal Himself in your experiment, you prove nothing.
If God doesn’t exist, your experiment still doesn’t prove anything.
It all hinges on whether He wants to reveal Himself, not whether or not you devise the perfect experiment. Why do I feel like Charlie Brown talking to Linus at Halloween?
I don’t know have much to say about your number one point. Maybe I would not make a good philosopher because I am pragmatic by nature.
#2 I think Christians and people of other religions can work together to decrease damage to the environment, but I don’t know if enough people will do this in order to make a difference.
I do what I can. Maybe I should turn off the computer…
God could be an alien super-advanced intelligence fully operating inside the laws of the universe that we may not fully understand yet. All that are fully legitimate scientific questions.
Sorry, that’s not my quote at the bottom.
“also agnostics can easily ignore the god aspect of a no sex before marriage rule by just seeing it as an excuse to keep people in line”
It isn’t just that, dooo. Without mentioning God at all, there are some good reasons for it. They’re so obvious, I hesistate to mention them.
In Islamic countries, agnostic partners or not, the couple may be killed.
There are arranged marriages in many societies. Families may feel shamed if the contract is broken.
Unwanted children and pregnancies
Sexually-transmittable diseases if either party is not a virgin or disease-free
Some people become emotionally attached (and I don’t think it’s unnatural) after being together. Or one person becomes a stalker…or emotionally distressed if rejected by the other person.
Some men say they only want to marry a virgin.
“…I would expect God to…”
telling god what to do is not always the best idea :D.
now seriously, Mait have already explained. God might chose not to show in our experiments and there is no way we can prove it and distinguish it from the nonexistence. And he may chose it as many time as he would want. Therefore, the question of his existence can not be scientifically investigated (don’t mix up god’s existence with the phenomena people were attributing to certain god’s actions throughout the history, like thunder or comets etc. - these physical phenomena are the matter of science, but mere existence of the omnipotent entity can not be scientifically dis-proven).
Mait,
of course we could not force God Almighty to be detectable in an experiment. But what kind of God is that? I like many of the images evoked by the bible, comparing God to a caring and loving father. But which father would hide from his children? Only a very cruel one. If we are his creation, all our flaws including our sins are his responsibility (the car analogy again) so he cannot blame us for having to hide from us.
“Throughout the centuries many people have said that they have felt the presence of God.”
People have had all kind of revelations and feelings, some people claimed to be a re incarnation of Napoleon. Our brain is a powerful device and create all sort of sensations none of which prove the existence of God.
Friedemann
"But which father would hide from his children? "
the one whose mysterious ways we are not meant to understand… Sorry to replay when you are talking to Mait, but just wanted to show you that there is always an answer in these discussions, making them non-scientific questions (you can discus contradictions of the Bible or some other religious book, but that says nothing about actual existence of god whose actions we can not understand.). And the fact that it is not a scientific question gives me right to say that I am an atheist although I do not know if god actually exists or not, since, by my criteria of knowledge, none knows nor can know, so questions of atheism and agnosticism have to remain the questions of knowing what you believe in, not knowing what actually is out there. Other people may have different criteria and claim different things. That’s fine, but whenever I meet someone who says that he knows that god doesn’t exist, I will ask how he knows that. (I used to ask the same to those who know that god does exist, but I gave up after getting few pretty much identical answers, all along the line “I know because I know”…).