If you are agnostic why don't you just believe anyways?

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: joshsquall
My opinion, which doesn't matter, is that God is not so vain as to not reward good, honest, hardworking people who do not believe in his existance.

So you'd make a perfect athiest. According to that logic, if there is a god and you were wrong, you still get in.

If I were God, I would let in good people who didn't believe in me over moderately good people who do.
Since you are so convinced that people can choose what they believe, please try to believe that aliens are going to come to your house at 6pm and abduct you.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
But it's still nice to make God happy by believing in him and wanting to be close to him. Make him proud. Who doesn't like making their parents happy?

But if there is a god, you'll have an eternity to make him/her happy in the afterlife. What is a few dozen years now compared to that eternity?

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: joshsquall
But it's still nice to make God happy by believing in him and wanting to be close to him. Make him proud. Who doesn't like making their parents happy?

But if there is a god, you'll have an eternity to make him/her happy in the afterlife. What is a few dozen years now compared to that eternity?

Because, like every Christian, I'm selfish, and want to ensure that I get into Heaven. I don't trust myself to be a good enough person to get in on merit alone.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Since you are so convinced that people can choose what they believe, please try to believe that aliens are going to come to your house at 6pm and abduct you.

I believe the evidence against aliens outweighs the evidence for aliens. Thus, that is an impossible task. I cannot believe against what the evidence suggests to me. Other people may believe the evidence for aliens outweighs the evidence against aliens. For them, your request is easy. In fact, I bet some people do believe that aliens are coming at 6 pm tonight to abduct them. But I cannot believe that.

 

[FreshFish]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: joshsquall
But it's still nice to make God happy by believing in him and wanting to be close to him. Make him proud. Who doesn't like making their parents happy?

But if there is a god, you'll have an eternity to make him/her happy in the afterlife. What is a few dozen years now compared to that eternity?

You have low expectations for your life eh?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: rainepar
Pascals wager comes to mind. You're leaving open the possibility of their being a god, so why not just believe in at least one? It increases your chances of being saved. I don't see how you can be agnostic...unless you just love taking risks.

Because along the same lines of reasoning, there is an equal probability of an 'anti-god theory' where if you believe in a god, you will be tossed into hell. Hence, it all equals out in the end.

/thread

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
My opinion, which doesn't matter, is that God is not so vain as to not reward good, honest, hardworking people who do not believe in his existance.

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Because, like every Christian, I'm selfish, and want to ensure that I get into Heaven. I don't trust myself to be a good enough person to get in on merit alone.

These two opinions of yours are incompatable. If you honestly have the opinion that it doesn't matter if you do not believe in his existance, then you cannot honestly believe that you can ensure getting into heaven by believing in his existance.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: joshsquall
My opinion, which doesn't matter, is that God is not so vain as to not reward good, honest, hardworking people who do not believe in his existance.

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Because, like every Christian, I'm selfish, and want to ensure that I get into Heaven. I don't trust myself to be a good enough person to get in on merit alone.

These two opinions of yours are incompatable. If you honestly have the opinion that it doesn't matter if you do not believe in his existance, then you cannot honestly believe that you can ensure getting into heaven by believing in his existance.

Not incompatible at all. I believe you can get into Heaven by faith alone. But that's not the only way. I'm just not good enough for the other way.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: apoppin
i think your analogy needs 'work'

I don't think it is that bad. Lets just say this: we know there isn't any smoking gun. However there is circumstancial evidence. How you weigh each piece of circumstancial evidence will vary from person to person. But just assign weights the damn stuff and make up your mind. You can always change your mind if more evidence is found or if you change your feelings on the various weights. You gain nothing my not making up your mind.

needs work, not is bad

it is not necessary to make your mind up - thats WHY there are agnostics. They don't have 'peace of mind' either way - knowing either choice is likely 50% wrong with NO way to prove anything.

As i said in an edit - MOST people accept their parent's religion withOUT questioning . . . that can NOT be good.

imo, the "burden of proof" rests with the believers . . . if "god" wanted us to have "proof" - we would have . . .

anyway, i'm off to work . . . i do believe in eating.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: FreshFish
You have low expectations for your life eh?

Not really. I go by the following definitions (as do most people with small variations) One = 1. Couple = 2. Few = 3 to ~7. Many = >~7.

Seven dozen additional years is longer than most people live. Especially since most of us on ATOT are already in our 20s. If I live 7 dozen more years, I'll be 112 years old.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Not incompatible at all. I believe you can get into Heaven by faith alone. But that's not the only way. I'm just not good enough for the other way.

Ok, I was under the impression that you had the standard Christian belief that you have to (a) believe in god and (b) be a good person. It is a rare Christian who believes that you can go to heaven as a horrible person based solely on belief in god. But, heres a :beer: for being a rare person. The world needs more people who think differently like you.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: apoppin
it is not necessary to make your mind up - thats WHY there are agnostics. They don't have 'peace of mind' either way - knowing either choice is likely 50% wrong with NO way to prove anything.

As i said in an edit - MOST people accept their parent's religion withOUT questioning . . . that can NOT be good.

imo, the "burden of proof" rests with the believers . . . if "god" wanted us to have "proof" - we would have . . .

I 100% agree that is it really bad to blindly follow your parent's religion. Same goes with political views. But I truely think if agnostics sat down and assigned weights to each piece of circumstancial evidence, then there would be nearly zero people who at the end of the day say it is exactly 50%/50%. Most agnostics would end up with 49%/51% or 51%/49%. From there, it is easy to go with one side. If the evidence or weighting changes, change sides.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: apoppin
it is not necessary to make your mind up - thats WHY there are agnostics. They don't have 'peace of mind' either way - knowing either choice is likely 50% wrong with NO way to prove anything.

As i said in an edit - MOST people accept their parent's religion withOUT questioning . . . that can NOT be good.

imo, the "burden of proof" rests with the believers . . . if "god" wanted us to have "proof" - we would have . . .

I 100% agree that is it really bad to blindly follow your parent's religion. Same goes with political views. But I truely think if agnostics sat down and assigned weights to each piece of circumstancial evidence, then there would be nearly zero people who at the end of the day say it is exactly 50%/50%. Most agnostics would end up with 49%/51% or 51%/49%. From there, it is easy to go with one side. If the evidence or weighting changes, change sides.

I also agree that blind faith is a bad thing. I often wonder how many modern Christians would be Christian if they were born to atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. parents. You have to find what feels right to you.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Since you are so convinced that people can choose what they believe, please try to believe that aliens are going to come to your house at 6pm and abduct you.

I believe the evidence against aliens outweighs the evidence for aliens. Thus, that is an impossible task. I cannot believe against what the evidence suggests to me. Other people may believe the evidence for aliens outweighs the evidence against aliens. For them, your request is easy. In fact, I bet some people do believe that aliens are coming at 6 pm tonight to abduct them. But I cannot believe that.

Then what makes you believe we atheists and agnostics can believe in a god? We obviously don't believe in gods because the evidence against them outweighs the evidence for (of which there is none). Deciding to believe in your God would be equivalent to you deciding that you want to believe in a pantheon and make sacrifices to Minerva.

 

[Deeko]

This is the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen. Its almost as bad as someone saying "if you're catholic, why not be protestant? its almost the same and easier to be saved".

Religion is a BELIEF. Its a FAITH. I am agnostic, I don't necessarily believe there is a God, but I don't rule out that its POSSIBLE, but I'm not going to "randomly" select a religion based on my parents beliefs out of fear of not being saved.

I'd like to point out that very few people out there should "technically" get into heaven anyway. We're all sinners, and technically we should not be forgiven for our sins. You will be forgiven your sins, based on Jesus dying on the cross, provided you TRULY repent. Almost no one does, people just say they do out of fear of Hell.

I'm a baptised & confirmed Lutheren, I still practice the faith(meaning I go to church with my parents every now and then when I'm at home), I own a bible, etc, by your logic what the hell do I have to worry about?

The whole premise is ridiculous. As others have already said...religion is about actually believing there is a god, not believing in God out of fear of Hell.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Then what makes you believe we atheists and agnostics can believe in a god? We obviously don't believe in gods because the evidence against them outweighs the evidence for (of which there is none). Deciding to believe in your God would be equivalent to you deciding that you want to believe in a pantheon and make sacrifices to Minerva.

Where did I say that you can simply belive in a god? You personally feel that the evidence points towards no god. Thus you must believe there is no god. You cannot believe anything else at this point in time. I think you are arguing with the wrong person, as I have never claimed that you can just belive against the evidence.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Deeko
This is the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen. Its almost as bad as someone saying "if you're catholic, why not be protestant? its almost the same and easier to be saved".

Religion is a BELIEF. Its a FAITH. I am agnostic, I don't necessarily believe there is a God, but I don't rule out that its POSSIBLE, but I'm not going to "randomly" select a religion based on my parents beliefs out of fear of not being saved.

I'd like to point out that very few people out there should "technically" get into heaven anyway. We're all sinners, and technically we should not be forgiven for our sins. You will be forgiven your sins, based on Jesus dying on the cross, provided you TRULY repent. Almost no one does, people just say they do out of fear of Hell.

I'm a baptised & confirmed Lutheren, I still practice the faith(meaning I go to church with my parents every now and then when I'm at home), I own a bible, etc, by your logic what the hell do I have to worry about?

The whole premise is ridiculous. As others have already said...religion is about actually believing there is a god, not believing in God out of fear of Hell.

Amen.

 

[Legend]

Because I believe that if there is a God, it would not judge people on trivial things like "have ya'all been saveda?" I believe it would judge the person solely on their morals and actions in life. Not words. If it were beliefs, then some random saint of a person in Mongolia or China died, they'd go straight to hell. But some losey drunk in the US would get salvation. Sorry, not buying that load of bull.

I do not believe in the Bible. It is a flawed book written by man from what I can tell. Flawed in that it's morals are sloppy and in its contradictions. Lack of evidence in Roman history of a man named Jesus. It supports slavery, condemns homosexuals, treats women as inferior, and depicts immoral acts by God in killing innocent people.

 

[jer0608]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: apoppin
i think your analogy needs 'work'

I don't think it is that bad. Lets just say this: we know there isn't any smoking gun. However there is circumstancial evidence. How you weigh each piece of circumstancial evidence will vary from person to person. But just assign weights the damn stuff and make up your mind. You can always change your mind if more evidence is found or if you change your feelings on the various weights. You gain nothing my not making up your mind.

By not making up your mind you remain open and receptive to new information and further understanding. Those who make up their mind before sufficient evidence is collected predispose themselves to reject new information that counters their established viewpoint. For example, as an engineer, I have worked on several root cause problem investigations. One of the worst things you can do is start with a hypothesis and search for data to support or refute it. The better approach is to start with the evidence. If the data is insufficient to generate a strong explanation of cause, you don't generate one anyway - you expand your investigation. Why should I not exhibit the same reserve, consideration and skepticism about important questions about the origins of the universe and life itself?

Some here have impugned agnostics as wishy washy. I see it differently. In my mind, the difference between an agnostic and an atheist or deist is an agnostic has the strength and self-esteem to say, "I do not know the answer to this question. I am not smart enough to solve this problem. I accpet that there are limits to human understanding and will keep an open mind to new information. I will reserve judgement until the experiences in my life are sufficient to justify belief or disbelief." I find that admirable.

 

[Haps]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: apoppin
it is not necessary to make your mind up - thats WHY there are agnostics. They don't have 'peace of mind' either way - knowing either choice is likely 50% wrong with NO way to prove anything.

As i said in an edit - MOST people accept their parent's religion withOUT questioning . . . that can NOT be good.

imo, the "burden of proof" rests with the believers . . . if "god" wanted us to have "proof" - we would have . . .

I 100% agree that is it really bad to blindly follow your parent's religion. Same goes with political views. But I truely think if agnostics sat down and assigned weights to each piece of circumstancial evidence, then there would be nearly zero people who at the end of the day say it is exactly 50%/50%. Most agnostics would end up with 49%/51% or 51%/49%. From there, it is easy to go with one side. If the evidence or weighting changes, change sides.

What evidence? There is no evidence that god exists. None whatsoever.

 

[Nightfall]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Confusednewbie1552
@chowderhead
Because agnostics don't beleive in a religion it means that they don't believe in heaven or hell and therefore there is no reason to believe in it for them. Why join a group to get a reward that you believe does not exist? It would be a waste of time in your mind.

That would be Atheists.
Agnostics by definition are those that are unconvinced or unsure of the exisitence of a God. It does not mean they do not believe - they are just not convinced or are not sure.

What the OP is asking is why do the agnostics not "hedge" their bets and believe in God as there is "nothing to lose" with believing since they aren't sure either way.
I already answered his question in my 1st response. Don't people read anymore?

Actually, you do have a lot to lose. As mentioned before, you have time, money, energy, etc to lose by going to worship and such.

As an agnostic, I choose not to waste my time, energy, or money in that fashion.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: jer0608
...

But any admirable person would not close their minds to new evidence even if he/she had choosen a path. As an engineer, you have to make decisions. Often there is no one true path. But, a decision has to be made.

Suppose people are in space. Suppose their craft has severe problems and they need to return home. Suppose you are one of the NASA engineers who have to devise a solution. You can't just leave the astronauts stranded just because there isn't definitive proof of a clear 100% correct answer. Instead, you take the knowledge you have, and make up the best plan that you can at the moment. As an engineer you constantly are looking for more data and revising the plan. But you still have to have a plan. You have to save their lives. Heck, you will likely develop a half dozen or more plans. But one of them must be eventually followed. You might take one path and the evidence shows it to be a bad idea and backtrack to one of your backup plans - that is what I call admirable. But again, you eventually must take one path. You understand that there are limits and that you may be wrong. But doing nothing is worse that doing something.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Nightfall

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Confusednewbie1552
@chowderhead
Because agnostics don't beleive in a religion it means that they don't believe in heaven or hell and therefore there is no reason to believe in it for them. Why join a group to get a reward that you believe does not exist? It would be a waste of time in your mind.

That would be Atheists.
Agnostics by definition are those that are unconvinced or unsure of the exisitence of a God. It does not mean they do not believe - they are just not convinced or are not sure.

What the OP is asking is why do the agnostics not "hedge" their bets and believe in God as there is "nothing to lose" with believing since they aren't sure either way.
I already answered his question in my 1st response. Don't people read anymore?

Actually, you do have a lot to lose. As mentioned before, you have time, money, energy, etc to lose by going to worship and such.

As an agnostic, I choose not to waste my time, energy, or money in that fashion.

exactly. I mentioned it before in my first post on this matter.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Haps
What evidence? There is no evidence that god exists. None whatsoever.

You exist. (Go back to Philosophy 101 for proof that you do exist, I'm not arguing that point in this thread.) I exist. The universe exists. That is something. That is evidence.

What does the evidence mean? Does it mean that a supreme being created us? Some people give weight in that direction (the reasons are too numerous to type). Or are we just random happenings? Some people give weight to that argument (the reasons are too numerous to type). The evidence is there and the possible interpretations are everywhere. How much credence you give each interpretation will vary from person to person.

Lets go with the standard big-bang theory for example. Some people think the evidence points towards a cyclical (or even just a one time) occurance of energy -> mass transfer. Where did this original energy come from? It was (a) created by a god or (b) always existed in some form. If this energy always existed, can that energy be called god? It would certainly be a benign god, but this energy exists. There you go. It is one of many possible religions for you to believe in. You can believe that energy always existed in the universe and you name that energy "God".

I personally call myself an athiest. I believe there is no supreme being guiding how the universe forms and develops. However, I believe the universe was always here and always will be here. I may be wrong. Evidence may be learned that disproves my belief. In that case, I'll have to change my belief if I agree with the evidence. However, my belief has meaning to me. Thus it is a religion. You may call my religion hogwash. You are free to do so. But you have your own personal beliefs. Thus you have a personal religion. Being agnostic is the denial that you have your own beliefs.

 

[azazyel]

Bill Hicks talking about taking a heroic dose of magic mushrooms...

"I'm glad they are against the law. You know what happened when I took them? I laid in a field of green grass for 4 hours going my god I love everything. The heavens parted, god looked down and rained down gifts of forgiveness onto my being, healing me on every level, psychically, physically, emotionally. And I realized that our true nature is sprit not body, that we are eternal beings and god's love is unconditional and there is nothing that we can ever do to change that. It is only our illusion that we are separate from god or that we are alone. In fact, the reality is we are one with god and he loves us."

No hell, just us and god. Some of us don't need a middleman.