Can you be surprised when reading the posts in this thread alone that religious people here may not want to stick their necks out as such even on mundane issues? I say that as a non believer myself.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Belief in God in U.S. dips to 81%, a new low
- Thread starter Forerunner
- Start date
Can you be surprised when reading the posts in this thread alone that religious people here may not want to stick their necks out as such even on mundane issues? I say that as a non believer myself.
Sure, but you don't have to quote them exactly you can just say transgender. If they used the N-word or or the f word for gay men I doubt you would have quoted them exactly so no need to for this.
Yeah, I'm asking where that fits on the "yes or no" god question. Like how would that have been counted in the poll, not really believing but open to the possibility?
Well if gymnastics espoused that you should belief whatever this guy over here says this old book by bronze age sheepherders says is the word of God, not just without any evidence that this is true, but I'm fact contrary to a lot of evidence which says this is simply NOT so, and also said that this is not only a good thing but a praise worthy thing... well then I would feel the same way about gymnastics.
The moment you convince someone to toss aside reason and logic, it's easy to manipulate them.
Wherever you want. That's the fun of being agnostic. You don't have to decide.
Please consult the chart. 🙏
TLDR a/gnosticism is a knowledge claim, a/theism is a belief claim.
I'm going to say no. Because this is what MOST people who say they are agnostic really think. Are you agnostic about invisible unicorns in your closet? I'm guessing you would say no. You probably mean to say that you see no evidence for a God? But that you are open to it existing if there is evidence.
This is the case, the defacto state for EVERYTHING, though, isn't it?
I'm sure you wouldn't say you are agnostic about vampires. You see no evidence for vanpires so you don't believe in vampires. But if you saw a pasty ass mother effer rise up from the grave, drink the blood of the grave digger and turn into a bunch of bats, I'm going to guess you'll starting believing in them.
Also as pointed above agnosticism is the belief that the question of God's existence is unknowable. Mind you most people are talking about a prime mover God and not YAHWH from the Bible, as th we re plenty of evidence he's not real.
Theism is whether you believe in him or not. You could be agnostic and a theist, or agnostic an an atheist.
I've seen the chart many times. I feel it gets incredibly pedantic.
The entire of point of calling yourself agnostic is that you don't want to claim anything definitively because it's impossible to know that kind of info. It's a stance that's meant to be indecisive and non specific so trying to break it down into specifics seems besides the point, if not outright going agaisnt. Mind you I don't think most people are actual agnostics but just trying to stay above the "fray" around that entire discussion so I find it even less important to break agnosticism into such specific sub groupings.
Era is an exhausting bubble when it comes to just about everything. Era is incredibly naive.
If Era's userbase was a representative slice of America as a whole there's no way I would come here and I'm sure that's true of many other users lol. It's more enjoyable to talk to somewhat like-minded people than those on a hopelessly different end of the ideological spectrum.
It's kinda sad the whole "In god we trust" situation started simply started to separate us from the communists.
In God We Trust - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"E pluribus unum" was ask just so damn fucking cool. It was absolutely brilliant.
And they threw it out for BS like this.
You can think it's impossible to know (making you agnostic), but you'd still have a belief or a lack of a belief in god/s (also applies to specific gods, as many atheists are agnostic about a generic prime mover god, but gnostic about an abrahamic god for example).
Not sure how treating the words as they are defined (by the Greek roots in the words themselves no less) is supposed to be breaking anything into pedantic specifics or going against the "point." It was never a stealth shield for whether you're a theist or atheist, it's always been a clarification of certainty.
I get that. I don't want posters spouting offensive takes either. But Era also creates an environment where posters are just inherently ignorant to various topics. I wish we knew Era's user demographics. I always assumed the 18-35 white male is the vast majority.
That would be up to you. You can say yes or no.
A god doesn't have to be benevolent.
I don't believe in any gods but its why whenever Gnosim shows up in fiction I end up being down with that. The Abrahamic god as described by its followers is clearly a petty, evil, self consumed being.
Are you saying era is naive because it's overwhelmingly atheist? Lol
True! Now how many religious people believe in a non benevolent god are there? I'd wager it's nearly entirely non religious people like deists or spiritualists that actually believe their god isn't benevolent.
I think its more like late 20's- 40's. I doubt there are many teenagers or early 20's posting on old school internet forums.
It is literally built into the creation myth that belief in God is tied to long-suffering.
This questions doesn't confuse anyone but the people asking it.
The god of the Christian Bible is essentially a whiny mass murderer, so it tracks.
It can be all of those things.
Agreed. But a benevolent god doesn't have to be benevolent to everyone necessarily.
Nah. I'm saying the posters who are shocked that 81% believe in god are naive.
Looks like the majority of era, myself included, are atheists. I think this gives posters a skewed outlook on religion here in the states.
I've already been over why this is a terrible arguement that falls apart the moment you actually think about it at more than a surface level, so I'm not going to repeat my arguements on that one again in depth
If you want the short summary, it's that an omnipotent god can't justify means with ends because omnipotence inherently overrides basic causality and they can achieve any end through any means. So if they need suffering as a prerequisite for free will then they are necessarily not omnipotent
Stillbirths, floods, fires, cancer, and tornadoes happen to people of every conceivable faith. If a god is benevolent to anyone there will still be unnecessary suffering.
I think it depends on their view of "benevolent", like many think god sank the Titanic because it was challenged or something. Doesn't sound very good to me.
People believed the Greek and Nord gods were assholes at the time
Wow, you've missed the part in the Bible that goes over the conversation that God the Father had with God the Son, where before He even created the universe he knew that ultimately he was going to have to sacrifice God the Son to abstain humans from sin.
I agree but that doesn't mean that a benevolent god must be benevolent to everyone.
I'd argue that if a god is only benevolent to people constantly praising them, they're not a benevolent god, they're a tyrant regardless. And again if they're truly omnipotent than the existence of people who aren't praising them must be jntentional which means they're creating people who exist to suffer which is ducked up (also fun fact a defining feature of branches of Christianity that believe in predestination)
Just has to be a higher being, sometimes one capable of creation or which defies explanation in some notable manner.
No reason your space worm colony couldn't be a god.
See, but this means he intended it to happen from the start. Because you literally can't say an omnipotent god has to do anythin, because that inherently violates the claims of omnipotence. If god doesn't have a choice, then they're not omnipotent
This, I deal with folks that don't question anything and live how they're told to live on a daily basis. When and where I have the power to avoid those people I will exercise it.
Tri Omnis is why this god is particularly fucked in most theological discussions.
So God knew the apple would be eaten because he is all knowing but then cursed all of humanity despite being omni benevolent.
That's in the first couple of pages. There's plenty of times in the old testament where God just plain old doesn't know something is happening and it continues in the new testament as well.
See things like this make no sense to me, when you die life does continue. You decompose and become apart of another animal, until that dies or get eaten. Hell the "self" constantly diea as our cells die off. I never understand why people have to add spirituality to the beauty of nature. It's all right in front of us.
It's largely because folks don't know what happens after death. Why would rebirth take away from the beauty of nature?