Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown;[url="tel:63322355")
    63322355[/url]]Life is clearly not fair and it does not favour good over evil. I would argue that the very concepts of heaven and hell were invented by humans who had an insatiable need for revenge/justice and who noted that divine justice is not observed in reality.



    Well personally I'd much rather prefer to enjoy what I'm experiencing now in the moment, rather than wasting that time worrying about losing it. Death is inevitable and I don't really have an issue with it, as long as I lived my life well then I'm satisfied.



    How absurd, those are not the only two options because you have assumed that both of them involve some sort of being! There is no evidence for such a creature and it's also possible that no supernatural being exists. And you're free to believe what you want, but that doesn't make it true or even plausible.
    (No time to properly reply but...)

    Agree with first two points pretty much. Their sentiments anyway.

    Last point:

    What other viewpoint is being put forward then?
    Scientists think that before our big bang and universe there were previous big bangs and if we go very, very far back they identify what they have termed a 'singularity'. As i've vaguely outlined before.

    There WAS a root cause. It's ridiculous to suggest there wasn't. The singularity must have come about due to something. Be that a chemical process (out of what though?) or by a 'being'...

    That singualrity is described as a stable and seemingly infinite state. Ok cool but how did it change into a less stable entity? Logic would dictate something caused it to change....

    So i am not saying there is a higher power. However, 'physics' imo does not explain what caused us. It does not solve the problem of infinite regress.
    There is an answer to the problem of infinite regress but none of us know what that is.
    So i don't think atheists nor theists can claim to be superior over the other as a result.

    If the theist uses the bible etc and rejects evolution, the big bang etc then that is different.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Debbie_KB)
    What is the need of religion if there is no God? In your opinion.
    And what makes you thnk there is no God?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leviathan1741)
    We can't really be 100% sure that there is no god, however we can still lack belief in one, hence agnostic atheism (not believing in god but not claiming to know that god doesn't exist)
    Nobody can validly claim that they "know" god doesn't exist, and likewise, nobody can validly claim that they know one does. The existence of one has neither been proven or disproven. It's solely belief (or lack of).
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    How do you cope with unfairness in your life? A perceived lack of karma? Etc.
    Well we all have unfairness in life. How is it fair that if you were born in the "right" religion, you have a higher chance of getting into heaven.
    Anyhow, surely this is an incentive to right the wrongs of the world and reduce unfairness? For example, instead of praying for rain (http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2016...ying-for-rain/), it is better to go out there and built water pumps and water transportation measures to villages and take steps towards reducing global warming. Another example is instead of praying for victims of gun violence (http://www.piconetwork.org/pages/pra...d-gun-violence), it is better if we tackle the root causes of it and try to solve the mental health issues and a lack of gun control to rectify (or at least decrease the effect) such problems.

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    We die, that's it. Surely this is somewhat demoralising....
    Not really, everyone who has been born will die. Again, it is also an incentive to make our lives and the lives of other better as this is the only life we get. It also gives a big incentive to leave a legacy, and try to do good so you can inspire further generation to do good and solve problems. This was the original message of Carpe Diem (Yolo) before it got hijacked by certain groups of people. Forget Jesus, stars died so you could be here.

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    How do you solve (in your head) the problem of infinite regress?
    Occam's razor. god does not help, in fact it adds more questions than answers. We may not have a full answer, but we have a good basis to hypothesise models and test. If you look at what has been achieved in the field of cosmology during the last century, I am confident that we can get closer to an answer. This answer will be far more fascinating and inspiring than can be found in books about sky-gods. Old men in the desert had wild imaginations, but as Lawrence Krauss said "Mother nature is far more creative than humans could hope to be."


    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Do you feel the need to tell everyone you are an atheist?
    No, but religious people forcing dogmatic beliefs down my throat is also a thing. The word "atheist" is also problematic and is designed for such purpose though. Why should I go round saying "I don't believe in a non-existent something" - why should I define myself by something I am not? Do you say, I am "anti-racist" or "a-dragonist".

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Would you ever be with someone who was not an atheist?
    Probably, but likelihood is probably not. Let's put it this way, I don't think someone who is religious will want to be with me so I'm only doing them a favour.

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Personally, i'm 'spiritual' and believe in god-like being but i reject the main organised religions...
    Great! Do you being "spiritual" contains a set of superstitions and rituals that you abide by?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by chemting;[url="tel:63322999")
    63322999[/url]]Well we all have unfairness in life. How is it fair that if you were born in the "right" religion, you have a higher chance of getting into heaven.
    Anyhow, surely this is an incentive to right the wrongs of the world and reduce unfairness? For example, instead of praying for rain (http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2016...ying-for-rain/), it is better to go out there and built water pumps and water transportation measures to villages and take steps towards reducing global warming. Another example is instead of praying for victims of gun violence (http://www.piconetwork.org/pages/pra...d-gun-violence), it is better if we tackle the root causes of it and try to solve the mental health issues and a lack of gun control to rectify (or at least decrease the effect) such problems.



    Not really, everyone who has been born will die. Again, it is also an incentive to make our lives and the lives of other better as this is the only life we get. It also gives a big incentive to leave a legacy, and try to do good so you can inspire further generation to do good and solve problems. This was the original message of Carpe Diem (Yolo) before it got hijacked by certain groups of people. Forget Jesus, stars died so you could be here.



    Occam's razor. god does not help, in fact it adds more questions than answers. We may not have a full answer, but we have a good basis to hypothesise models and test. If you look at what has been achieved in the field of cosmology during the last century, I am confident that we can get closer to an answer. This answer will be far more fascinating and inspiring than can be found in books about sky-gods. Old men in the desert had wild imaginations, but as Lawrence Krauss said "Mother nature is far more creative than humans could hope to be."




    No, but religious people forcing dogmatic beliefs down my throat is also a thing. The word "atheist" is also problematic and is designed for such purpose though. Why should I go round saying "I don't believe in a non-existent something" - why should I define myself by something I am not? Do you say, I am "anti-racist" or "a-dragonist".



    Probably, but likelihood is probably not. Let's put it this way, I don't think someone who is religious will want to be with me so I'm only doing them a favour.


    Great! Do you being "spiritual" contains a set of superstitions and rituals that you abide by?
    Will reply to this tomorrow when i have time.

    Agree with a fair bit of what you say

    To answer your question:
    No.
    Only the thought that there could be a higher power and perhaps a karma type system upon death.

    I view this as unlikely and far fetched but science does not solve things either (yet anyway).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Any country can apply its own immigration policy. Obviously, the UK cannot prevent EU citizens from working here.
    Well good luck with getting that policy passed

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Last point:

    What other viewpoint is being put forward then?
    It wouldn't matter if no other viewpoint were being put forward, that would not justify saying "God did it" which is nothing more than the God of the Gaps fallacy.

    Scientists think that before our big bang and universe there were previous big bangs and if we go very, very far back they identify what they have termed a 'singularity'. As i've vaguely outlined before.
    No, most scientists have no clue what happened before the Big Bang. Many people have also highlighted that asking this question may not even make sense given that time originated with the expansion. These multiverse and black hole musings are hypotheses, not theories.

    There WAS a root cause. It's ridiculous to suggest there wasn't. The singularity must have come about due to something. Be that a chemical process (out of what though?) or by a 'being'...
    What's ridiculous is asserting things which have no evidence to back them up. There is no current proof for a cause nor does there need to be as there is no inherent reason why the singularity needs a cause other than religionists' and theists' desire for there to be one. But once again, wanting something to happen or have happened does not make it true or plausible. The singularity may have been eternal or arisen out of fluctuations or caused by natural laws which are not sentient nor magical.

    That singualrity is described as a stable and seemingly infinite state. Ok cool but how did it change into a less stable entity? Logic would dictate something caused it to change....
    And if you know anything about quantum physics you'll know that at the subatomic level logic as we know it completely disintegrates, never mind the possible properties of a singularity. And once again, this cause, if there were one, need not be supernatural nor sentient.

    So i am not saying there is a higher power. However, 'physics' imo does not explain what caused us.
    What do you mean by what caused us? That is perfectly and extensively explained by biology, specifically evolution.

    It does not solve the problem of infinite regress.
    And inserting God to solve this doesn't help as that just creates more questions and once again is nothing more that the God of the Gaps.

    There is an answer to the problem of infinite regress but none of us know what that is.
    So i don't think atheists nor theists can claim to be superior over the other as a result.

    If the theist uses the bible etc and rejects evolution, the big bang etc then that is different.
    How do you know there is an answer to it?
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    Theism is the belief that god(s) exists, despite the lack of verifiable evidence for one.

    Atheism is the belief that no god(s) exists, as there is no verifiable evidence for one.

    Agnosticism is the rejection of a belief in either; the middle ground, if you will.


    I would say agnosticism is a lack of knowledge about the existence of a god/gods. I think it's a different issue from belief.
    I don't think one can reject to believe either. You either believe a god exists or you lack belief in one. Whether or not you state that you lack sufficient knowledge to know for certain if what you believe is true is a different case.
    Just my opinion anyway.


    For example, I am atheist and I do not claim a god definitely doesn't exist as I have no proof and I lack the knowledge to make such a claim. Though I choose not to believe one exists (for a variety of reasons)
    That would make me agnostic atheist. But seeing as this stance should be the default for most reasonable atheists I don't need to add the label agnostic as well because it goes without saying.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Will reply to this tomorrow when i have time.

    Agree with a fair bit of what you say

    To answer your question:
    No.
    Only the thought that there could be a higher power and perhaps a karma type system upon death.

    I view this as unlikely and far fetched but science does not solve things either (yet anyway).
    Sure, cya tomorrow

    Do you think there is a "super-natural force" constantly interfering with day-to-day natural affairs?

    I am a bit confused at what you're refering but science does not claim to answer all of everyone's questions... another set of ideology does, do you think it does a good job?. It's almost like trying to judge a fish by its ability to climb trees.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    I would say agnosticism is a lack of knowledge about the existence of a god/gods. I think it's a different issue from belief.
    I don't think one can reject to believe either. You either believe a god exists or you lack belief in one. Whether or not you state that you lack sufficient knowledge to know for certain of what you believe is true is a different case.
    Just my opinion anyway.
    In this subject matter, there are no proven facts or truths relating to whether god exists, only evidence—of dubious plausibility.

    "Knowledge" is the accumulation of proven facts; since none exist, everyone lacks knowledge about the existence of god(s), not just agnostics. Acknowledging evidence, which there is, is not the same as accumulating knowledge.

    A belief is a belief because it's unknown whether it is true or false. You can be convinced it is either one or the other, but never certain. Certainty arrives through confirmation of its truth or falseness, which requires sufficient verifiable evidence—which currently doesn't exist.

    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    For example, I am atheist and I do not claim a god definitely doesn't exist as I have no proof and I lack the knowledge to make such a claim. Though I choose not to believe one exists (for a variety of reasons)
    This is exactly what atheism is.

    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    That would make me agnostic atheist. But seeing as this stance should be the default for most reasonable atheists I don't need to add the label agnostic as well because it goes without saying.
    This is an oxymoron; you cannot simultaneously reject belief and accept belief. Combining two terms that are in direct contradiction of one another for the sake of distinguishing atheists who accept that they aren't certain that god doesn't exist (which nobody can be anyway) from atheists who claim to be certain (which they cannot be) is needless.

    These are facts. The above is not a matter of opinion.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    In this subject matter, there are no proven facts or truths relating to whether god exists, only evidence—of dubious plausibility.

    "Knowledge" is the accumulation of proven facts; since none exist, everyone lacks knowledge about the existence of god(s), not just agnostics. Acknowledging evidence, which there is, is not the same as accumulating knowledge.

    A belief is a belief because it's unknown whether it is true or false. You can be convinced it is either one or the other, but never certain. Certainty arrives through confirmation of its truth or falseness, which requires sufficient verifiable evidence—which currently doesn't exist.

    These are facts. The above is not a matter of opinion.
    I'm not disputing this actually. In fact I agree

    I was just trying to point out I don't see agnosticism as a 'third option' to theism or atheism.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    I'm not disputing this actually. In fact I agree

    I was just trying to point out I don't see agnosticism as a 'third option' to theism or atheism.
    You are insisting that "agnostic atheism" is a valid label, and that agnosticism is the lack of knowledge, rather than a rejection of belief.

    Why isn't it a third option? Surely you don't have to have a belief?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps my dog is an atheist. He most probably lacks a belief in one. Does that make inanimate objects atheist? A door doesn't have beliefs and neither does a table.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    In this subject matter, there are no proven facts or truths relating to whether god exists, only evidence—of dubious plausibility.

    "Knowledge" is the accumulation of proven facts; since none exist, everyone lacks knowledge about the existence of god(s), not just agnostics. Acknowledging evidence, which there is, is not the same as accumulating knowledge.

    A belief is a belief because it's unknown whether it is true or false. You can be convinced it is either one or the other, but never certain. Certainty arrives through confirmation of its truth or falseness, which requires sufficient verifiable evidence—which currently doesn't exist.



    This is exactly what atheism is.



    This is an oxymoron; you cannot simultaneously reject belief and accept belief. Combining two terms that are in direct contradiction of one another for the sake of distinguishing atheists who accept that they aren't certain that god doesn't exist (which nobody can be anyway) from atheists who claim to be certain (which they cannot be) is needless.

    These are facts. The above is not a matter of opinion.
    That depends on how you define agnosticism. Clearly you define it as a 'rejection of belief'. I see it as what its literal meaning implies and that is 'without knowledge'. I also see it as something that is different to stating ones beliefs which is why I don't think it can be a third option. People who label themselves 'agnostics' are pretty much fence sitters that are looking for a label to quantify it because everyone else (that's logical anyway) is agnostic as well.

    Well, in my post I said one shouldn't even have to state 'I am agnostic atheist' because it goes without saying. Any logical person can't be 100% certain in their beliefs hence why they are beliefs in the first place.


    I say it's my opinion because there are many varying opinions on this issue and varying definitions of the word 'agnosticism'.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    I say it's my opinion because there are many varying opinions on this issue and varying definitions of the word 'agnosticism'.
    There are no varying opinions on this issue in the literature. If you're going to engage in another discussion on agnosticism, at least read and address the points raised in the following post a few pages back.

    (Original post by YesAllMen)
    ...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Perhaps my dog is an atheist. He most probably lacks a belief in one. Does that make inanimate objects atheist? A door doesn't have beliefs and neither does a table.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hmm... I must say I have never asked myself this question before.

    A tree that lacks fruit is described as acarpous. A mammal also lacks fruit, but it would be rather odd to refer to a mammal as being acarpous. It only makes sense to talk of something as being acarpous, if it exists in contradiction to a similar thing which does bare fruit. Certain trees do bare fruit, and so those trees that don't bare fruit are contrasted by their lack of fruit.

    If there were theistic dogs and doors, then I think it would be a useful term, but until then, an atheistic dog is no more logical/illogical than an acarpous dog.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    There are no varying opinions on this issue in the literature. If you're going to engage in another discussion on agnosticism, at least read and address the points raised in the following post a few pages back.
    Yes there are. Many. I cited 5 different prominent atheists that agree with me plus websites that hold the same opinion.
    I did address his 'points' but unfortunately we were going around in circles and he failed to convince me otherwise.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    Yes there are. Many. I cited 5 different prominent atheists that agree with me plus websites that hold the same opinion.
    I did address his 'points' but unfortunately we were going around in circles and he failed to convince me otherwise.
    It was explained why those prominent atheists are wrong, and why very few, if any contemporary philosopher of religion uses terms like agnostic, atheist, etc in the way you're using them. Moreover, random atheists bloggers and writers are not experts; this is a classic case of a fallacious appeal to authority. The arguments presented by those atheists have been dealt in the literature, and the Reddit post quoted earlier does an excellent job of summarising the problems with such arguments. But if you're going to use blogs and random websites to counter the definitions used in the relevant literature, then we might as well stop here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    It was explained why those prominent atheists are wrong, and why very few, if any contemporary philosopher of religion uses terms like agnostic, atheist, etc in the way you're using them. Moreover, random atheists bloggers and writers are not experts; this is a classic case of a fallacious appeal to authority. The arguments presented by those atheists have been dealt in the literature, and the Reddit post quoted earlier does an excellent job of summarising the problems with such arguments. But if you're going to use blogs and random websites to counter the definitions used in the relevant literature, then we might as well stop here.
    Stupidly, the TSR app doesn't let you positive rate. But good post!

    If I'm not mistaken, agnosticism is still used to mean 'non committal' in every context except the question of God's existence. Which seems incredibly arbitrary.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    That depends on how you define agnosticism. Clearly you define it as a 'rejection of belief'. I see it as what its literal meaning implies and that is 'without knowledge'. I also see it as something that is different to stating ones beliefs which is why I don't think it can be a third option. People who label themselves 'agnostics' are pretty much fence sitters that are looking for a label to quantify it because everyone else (that's logical anyway) is agnostic as well.

    Well, in my post I said one shouldn't even have to state 'I am agnostic atheist' because it goes without saying. Any logical person can't be 100% certain in their beliefs hence why they are beliefs in the first place.

    I say it's my opinion because there are many varying opinions on this issue and varying definitions of the word 'agnosticism'.
    Right, thanks for clarifying.

    I feel the general definition of the term is redundant, since everyone is without knowledge naturally. Abiding by this definition, theists and atheists should be technically referred to as "agnostic theists" and "agnostic atheists"—which is blatantly dumb as it has a meaning which is implied by the fact the purpose of such labels are to categorise beliefs, which inherently lack knowledge. You understand this as well.

    If you consider agnostics to be fence-sitters, isn't that implying that they are choosing not to believe one way or the other—which in other words, IS a rejection of belief?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.