Please note that this is not a "You're wrong" topic, but more of a "Why" topic.

As some of you know, I am agnostic, and this is because although I don't really believe anything, I like to remain open minded to any theory, even ones that seem unlikely. Atheists deny the existence of God because there is no scientific proof. This is true, there is no proof of God's existence. However, if they truly wish to act and think with logic, then how can they discount the theory of God entirely? There is no proof that God does not exist. So wouldn't it be more scientifically correct to not invest belief in God, but to also remain open minded to the possibility (however unlikely) that God exists until evidence proving otherwise is uncovered?

I don't know, just wondering. Tell me your beliefs and opinions, Newgrounds.

At 9/18/12 05:34 PM, Yert wrote: oh cool a religion thread

Oh cool a sarcastic post contributing nothing.

They feel more comfortable with their mortality by thinking that they know everything about it and becoming nonexistent is comforting as well somehow. Everyone has their own method.

At 9/18/12 05:31 PM, Scarface wrote:

Tell me your beliefs and opinions, Newgrounds.

Well im a Christian and no im not one thos fucking crazy scumbags like the wbc. Or other crazy people/groups

I like to respect every one let it be gays

athiest (if they dont start acting like a assshole towards me then they get my respect )
( i a couple friends who are so)

Etc

Can we agree to disagree. Let people do the things they do. And not question them for their motives?
Can't we all just get along regardless of race, religion, sexuality, or financial status.
Peace and love man. Peace and love.

Atheism is a leap of faith. I don't like faith.

At 9/18/12 05:46 PM, Viper50 wrote: Can we agree to disagree. Let people do the things they do. And not question them for their motives?
Peace and love man. Peace and love.

WHY do you want peace and love?

What could possibly be your motivation for wanting that?

At 9/18/12 05:46 PM, Viper50 wrote: Can we agree to disagree. Let people do the things they do. And not question them for their motives?
Can't we all just get along regardless of race, religion, sexuality, or financial status.
Peace and love man. Peace and love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs yeah

I don't deny the theory of there being a God, I just simply refuse to believe that one exists until I see some actual hard evidence that shows me otherwise.

At 9/18/12 05:51 PM, robotking98 wrote: I don't deny the theory of there being a God, I just simply refuse to believe that one exists until I see some actual hard evidence that shows me otherwise.

Pretty much agnostic.

At 9/18/12 05:50 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 9/18/12 05:31 PM, Scarface wrote: I am agnostic, and this is because although I don't really believe anything, I like to remain open minded to any theory

You're an open minded atheist

Not really. Although Atheists can be open minded, they disbelieve. I don't believe for certain that there isn't a God, even though I don't have proof, I just don't believe for certain that there is one.

At 9/18/12 05:48 PM, Scarface wrote:

At 9/18/12 05:46 PM, Viper50 wrote: Can we agree to disagree. Let people do the things they do. And not question them for their motives?
Peace and love man. Peace and love.

WHY do you want peace and love?

What could possibly be your motivation for wanting that?

Because people fighting about all of the stuff I mentioned is pointless. And in the end if things keep going the way they're going we'll all just end up destroying one another. So why is having peace and love such a weird thing to want?

the burden of evidence is placed upon the individual who makes the assertion. it wouldn't make sense for me to tell you to disprove that santa's ghost is currently rubbing his testicles on your forehead because no matter how you argue it i could just say that you can't fully disprove it. does this mean that a scientific minded person should be open to the idea of any ridiculous, irrefutable hypothesis? science does not lend itself to the supernatural because it is grounded in observable fact. what you're proposing has nothing to do with being scientifically correct but just being an irrational shit who blindly accepts the possibility of anything. to say it's unlikely that there's no god is ridiculous because that implies some degree of measure or statistics when we are talking about an entirely intangible concept fabricated by idiots thousands of years ago before we had science to explain the natural world.

also this thread adds absolutely nothing to newgrounds' rich theological knowledge as you've simply regurgitated a logical fallacy made by many, many people.

Religion is just faith. The definition of faith?

Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I, for one, don't have faith in faith.

I'm pretty much as agnostic as you are, Scarf.

Who's to say the real world isn't any bigger and more complex than our puny three-dimensional brains can comprehend?

Days without a religion thread in General: 0

At 9/18/12 05:58 PM, Xenomit wrote: Open minded atheism is simply not believing anything, but acknowledging that it's possible that a god can exist

You just described agnosticism. Atheists deny the existence of any sort of higher god being.

At 9/18/12 05:58 PM, Shade wrote: Fun fact, Hitler was an Atheist.

He was roman cathlolic

At 9/18/12 06:09 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 9/18/12 06:04 PM, Tremulos wrote:

At 9/18/12 05:58 PM, Xenomit wrote: Open minded atheism is simply not believing anything, but acknowledging that it's possible that a god can exist

You just described agnosticism. Atheists deny the existence of any sort of higher god being.

I have absolutely zero faith, and I don't believe in anything at all. I'm not theistic at all, I don't take gods into consideration at all, I'm atheist

The prefix "a" meaning "absence of", the suffix "theist" meaning someone who considers their religious beliefs. I'm an atheist who acknowledges that it's possible for a god to exist, however I spend absolutely zero brainpower on thinking about it.

And according to his description of his beliefs, he's the same way

Buht the wers haz teh "theist" in it ans it sez you dont belief in something that is you made the decision you wont belief it but its still exists and that is yor faith that it doesnt.

Atheism is best defined as the absence of belief in god(s). It contains the prefix "a," meaning "not" or "without," attached to "theism," meaning "belief in god(s)." The word itself does not imply stubbornness, no matter how much atheists tend to be stubborn (or how much you may think they do,) and it definitely does not imply certainty. While gnostic atheists think god is impossible, atheists in general do not necessarily think the same.

Also, to add some more to this conversation, how does everyone feel about Pascal's Wager?

At 9/18/12 06:15 PM, wreckr wrote: Also, to add some more to this conversation, how does everyone feel about Pascal's Wager?

It ignores that other religions exist with hells of their own. One might as well believe in all religions simultaneously.

It also implies that a person can force genuine belief purely out of fear.

At 9/18/12 06:08 PM, Shade wrote: shade asserts his mental retardation

disproving logical fallacy=atheist shit. mkay there champ.

At 9/18/12 06:19 PM, Winrar1337 wrote: It also implies that a person can force genuine belief purely out of fear.

Well, why would someone believe in something if they had nothing to lose for not believing? I mean, it's good to have things to believe in, but sometimes people take it to extremes and it can end up limiting the rights of others.

At 9/18/12 05:58 PM, Shade wrote: Fun fact, Hitler was an Atheist.

He was also reputedly a vegetarian and a non-smoker. What's your point?

I don't really hold with religion, but my grandfather is pretty deeply religious so we go to church every so often, and it is a somewhat good place to meet people. I don't particularly like religious people since they allude to things that have no basis in observable fact. They also seem to talk about the bible all the time and I find that to be boring.

that was quick

At 9/18/12 05:31 PM, Scarface wrote: So wouldn't it be more scientifically correct to not invest belief in God, but to also remain open minded to the possibility (however unlikely) that God exists until evidence proving otherwise is uncovered?

Depends on your definition of "Scientifically Correct".

At 9/18/12 06:27 PM, GiantDouche wrote: that was quick

I did nazi that coming.

Shitty puns aside...

I feel that because this exists people will be more likely to bring up Hitler or Nazis in a long discussion.

At 9/18/12 06:15 PM, wreckr wrote: Also, to add some more to this conversation, how does everyone feel about Pascal's Wager?

I don't like it. If I don't believe in God and act like I do believe, sure I'll be rewarded for good deeds and whatnot, but isn't that a bit of a cheat? Not to mention that if God is omniscient, what the hell would be the point of even considering Pascal's Wager? God would know that you don't believe, and would react accordingly. I don't need God to act with a moral compass. There are plenty of other philosophical plans that stated to not be a dick to another person. How about Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative? That's pretty cool, and it doesn't require a deity.

As for all of the other stuff, the only reason I even invoke God is in swearing and cursing people out. I guess it is nice to think that people will get their own comeuppance in the end of days, but there is no evidence to support it.

If it just so happened that tomorrow they found proof positive of the existence of God, I would change my tune, but until then, no dice.

"Atheist" as it is commonly used today is a much broader term than many people tend to think. Agnosticism is actually a subset of atheism, not a wholly separate thing.

At 9/18/12 05:38 PM, Scarface wrote:

At 9/18/12 05:34 PM, Yert wrote: oh cool a religion thread

Oh cool a sarcastic post contributing nothing.

Hey a penny!