Is it possible to believe in God and not believe in God at the same time?

[Taejin]

Apparently Ramachandran thinks so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmiQGnW8tLI#t=4m19s

 

[Babbles]

Isn't that basically what being agnostic is all about?

Or maybe Unitarian . . they'll believe in anything and nothing.

 

[TridenT]

Isn't that basically what being agnostic is all about?

Or maybe Unitarian . . they'll believe in anything and nothing.

Uh.. no... Being agnostic is just saying, "I don't know" to all questions of whether "does or does not a god exist?"

 

[mjrpes3]

Isn't that basically what being agnostic is all about?

No, agnostics withhold from any belief because there is not enough evidence to make one.

 

[olds]

Who's ramalamadingdong?

 

[Babbles]

Uh.. no... Being agnostic is just saying, "I don't know" to all questions of whether "does or does not a god exist?"

And that is fundamentally different than willing to both believe and disbelieve in a God how?

As far as I am concerned it is essentially the Schrodinger's cat of a belief system; God is both alive and dead until I get proof one way or another.

 

[OverVolt]

Yea, there just has to be a God in terms of universe creation. We can use science to describe "where is this place?" but I don't think it can answer "why is this place here?"

Like, if god doesn't exist, why would there be a universe at all? It could be radically different and unsuitable for life as we know it, and it wouldn't matter, or it wouldn't be here at all. Space is just too big, there has to be something more to the origins of the place we live in (the universe).

I know we can figure things out in the past up to the big bang. The evidence is fairly solid, but trying to describe where all the energy came from for the big bang confuses me. All of our scientific models break down at different scales. With knowledge of particle physics we can't model the world on our scale very well, and with knowledge of our world we can't model the universe very well, so we have all these separate models and nothing cohesive to tie them all together.

 

[theflyingpig]

Who's ramalamadingdong?

I don't know who ramalamadingdong is, but Vilayanur Ramachandran is a prominent neurologist. Your pathetic effort to make fun of this man's last name only serves to showcase your boundless ignorance, bigotry, and racism. Everyone knows this.

 

[olds]

I don't know who ramalamadingdong is, but Vilayanur Ramachandran is a prominent neurologist. Your pathetic effort to make fun of this man's last name only serves to showcase your boundless ignorance, bigotry, and racism. Everyone knows this.

Please. I showcase it it many ways. If you weren't an ignorant noob, you'd know this.

 

[TridenT]

Yea, there just has to be a God in terms of universe creation. We can use science to describe "where is this place?" but I don't think it can answer "why is this place here?"

Like, if god doesn't exist, why would there be a universe at all? It could be radically different and unsuitable for life as we know it, and it wouldn't matter, or it wouldn't be here at all. Space is just too big, there has to be something more to the origins of the place we live in (the universe).

I know we can figure things out in the past up to the big bang. The evidence is fairly solid, but trying to describe where all the energy came from for the big bang confuses me. All of our scientific models break down at different scales. With knowledge of particle physics we can't model the world on our scale very well, and with knowledge of our world we can't model the universe very well, so we have all these separate models and nothing cohesive to tie them all together.

lol(no, really, this is epic... that's just baaad) since when does, god not existing means the universe doesn't exist? :O

 

[Mathlete]

Step away from the bong.

What if c-a-t really spelled dog.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Who's ramalamadingdong?

Don't worry, you'd be too stupid to follow his material anyway.

 

[gaidensensei]

Yeah, I can think of a few things people say.
"Oh my god"
"Bless you"
"God damn"
"Jesus christ"

 

[Kadarin]

And that is fundamentally different than willing to both believe and disbelieve in a God how?

It is neither believing nor disbelieving; it's withholding an opinion given the lack of evidence.

As far as I am concerned it is essentially the Schrodinger's cat of a belief system; God is both alive and dead until I get proof one way or another.

Almost. It's more like God is neither alive nor dead until you get proof.

 

[sandorski]

Given the bazillion different "gods", even if you Believe in a god, it is unlikely you'll Believe in the right god.

 

[GaryJohnson]

Given the bazillion different "gods", even if you Believe in a god, it is unlikely you'll Believe in the right god.

If all choices have equal probability of being correct, doesn't that also mean that it's likely at least one of those gods exists (as opposed to none of them existing at all)?

 

[Perknose]

And that is fundamentally different than willing to both believe and disbelieve in a God how?

As far as I am concerned it is essentially the Schrodinger's cat of a belief system; God is both alive and dead until I get proof one way or another.

Agnostics withhold belief so they simply don't do the believe part of "both believe and don't believe" thing, see?

They . . . don't . . . believe . . . in the existence of God, period.

It's that simple and can't be further argued.

Moreover, since what they do is withhold belief, they also do not conclusively not believe, either.

Your Schrodinger's cat quantum state of simultaneous belief and non-belief, as interesting as it may be, in and of itself, to you, is categorically not the agnostic's stance, in either relevant category.

 

[IronWing]

I say "yes".

 

[sandorski]

If all choices have equal probability of being correct, doesn't that also mean that it's likely at least one of those gods exists (as opposed to none of them existing at all)?

Worded that way, sure, that's a correct assessment. Doesn't really change the fact that it is unnecessary for a god to exist for us to exist. Also doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely zero Evidence that such a being has ever existed, never mind still exists.

 

[Alex@Nosound]

My brain hurts

 

[Perknose]

I say "yes".

If you're really going to go with this sloppy. lazy, easily disabused analogy, shouldn't you fucking say:

"I say "yes and no," simultaneously? ()

 

[IronWing]

If you're really going to go with this sloppy. lazy, easily disabused analogy, shouldn't you fucking say:

"I say "yes and no," simultaneously? ()

Listen up bud, it took a good ten minutes to find that pic and add the captions. Sloppy maybe but I ain't lazy.

 

[Perknose]

Listen up bud, it took a good ten minutes to find that pic and add the captions. Sloppy maybe but I ain't lazy.

So is that a "yes, a "no", or a "yes and no"? :sneaky:

 

[TridenT]

I say "yes".

[snip]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wttRl2ASgTk

Really, you guys need to listen to the whole song or at least look up the lyrics to get the lulz I have placed in here...

 

[SphinxnihpS]

God as a wave/particle, hmm... One photon through two slits... This may explain Mary!