Agnostic.com

11 3

As to the question "How sure are you that there is no god?"
I put 99.9% but with the caveat that I am 100% all the gods man has thought of are not real but the chance there is something I can't 100% deny. Though if there is a god like being I am sure it is a character like "Q" from Star Trek than anything like the Christian god.

ThomasLevi 6 Jan 28
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

If this so call deity use to speak to the people back in bibical days, why doesnt he still? Weak minded people need a crutch....I for one do not.

1

Until a god reveals itself and there is definite evidence of its existance I will remain an Athiest.

2

Good point, I say the same, I tell people I am 100% sure the god of the bible does not exist.

0

I am internally 100% sure there is/are no god/gods. However, in public discourse that gets reduced to 99.999...9% so that the burden of proof remains where it belongs. After 60+ years of being openly atheist, I have learned a thing or two. I also remain open to any information/evidence to the contrary. So far I haven't come across any.

@Dida -- Because we have a marvelous, though incomplete, record of the development of man, and with the advent of the field of genetics, there is no room for the creation of man or anything else on this planet except the first single celled critters from which all life was generated. So, at that point when life first appeared, there may be some wiggle room for direct action by some other being(s), but then we are faced with the same problem when it comes to them. Where did they come from? Even more to the point, what motivation would anyone have for coming down to a planet still in its embryonic form to seed it with life? At the time the first critters came into being, this planet was inhospitable to any other form of life.

0

I am also a 99.9 percenter. I am 100% positive that the petty, violent, sexist gods made up by homo sapiens do not exist. I cannot be absolutely certain that someone/something isn't in charge of this universe in some way. I am open to credible evidence. This is on the assumption that "god" is the term we give to the creator/manager of the universe.

0

I am 100% sure that I have been presented with sufficient evidence to prove that a supernatural god/s exists or could exist. However, I also know that I don't know everything and that it is impossible for a god/s to exist in any form in any universe - but if evidence does come to prove a god's existence, then it will no longer be supernatural as it will have a natural explanation.

The same applies to any other supernatural phenomena too.

0

I guess for me to answer the question in the first place I need a strong definition for what is meant by "God." When it comes to the general concept of God or gods, I reject the claim as baseless, with no reason to accept the proposition itself as valid — that the world is not as it seems — without evidence. In that regard I'm a weak atheist (or de facto atheist, if you like that term). It basically comes down to lacking belief in those things claimed that lack any supporting evidence; it's not a 50-50 proposition to me, but I'm not at 100% certitude. On the other hand, as you mentioned, specific manmade gods are another matter entirely. I have good reason to actively disbelieve in Yahweh, for example, because I'm familiar with the culture origins from a regional pantheon, the adaptation to nomadic god, the evolution to most power god, and the eventual promotion to one-and-only God. In religion, the hand of humanity in the creation of God and gods is apparent, and I am quick to not merely dismiss the claims but directly disbelieve them.

1

I always keep a tiny bit of room in case someone is able to prove it to me. Although, I'd much rather proof of dragons or unicorns

0

Imo the prob comes when we try to agree on the definitions of "real," and even "being." I was raised to believe all of the "other" gods were "not real," and I am slowly coming to see that they were all as "real" to their contemporaries as God is to us.

I say "us" even though my "sureness that God exists" is exactly opposite yours simply bc when I say "God," you understand to what I am referring, more or less. Ergo, God exists, at least in some manifestation, right? The long white beard I srsly doubt tho lol

[archive.org]
is somewhat of a slog, but worth it imo

Can you elaborate a bit on one point you made? I'm not sure I follow you on the statement that if people know what you mean by "God" then it must exist in some fashion. If I talk about Satan or unicorns or fairies or Superman or the multiverse or magic, most of us have some idea what's being discussed. That understanding of the general concepts doesn't seem to lend credence to them necessarily being anything more than concepts, though. I would further argue that if you had 100 people from this community give you their detailed descriptions of what they think people mean by "God," you'd receive some overlap and a lot of disparity — so even if there were some truth that shared conceptualization necessitated manifestation, which doesn't ring true to me, the nebulous nature of people's concepts seems to be a problem, as there's no truly shared understanding.

@resserts my reply there would be that concepts are creations, that gain more validity the more ppl "believe" in them. Or to put it another way, i perceive as much overlap and disparity in any mutual def of "multiverse" as i do @ "God," and for whatever reason i am led to insert in here that you "create" a spirit just by walking into a room, that the others in the room could even describe with words; apropos of nothing i guess, sorry lol.

that we might be at odds in any understanding describes our lack of understanding of each other, iow, not the failure of any creation. Or iow i, who believe there is a Creative Force, can agree with you on some level that there is no God such as has been (overly) defined, and the Bible even states that God cannot be known, "Unknown God."

but i have to be able to hear you, to agree with you; i cannot agree with you by insisting that you agree with me; or at least i might gain some sycophants that way--mindless followers--but it won't work with anyone rationally.

John the Baptist is considered by us to be some religious Jesus Freak, see, but really baptising ppl in the Jordan River is tantamount to sedition, in a Theocracy, right? The Bible is a collection of Man's Wisdom, written in the Eastern Dialectic, which logic cannot penetrate imo, hence why the Bible, which roundly condemns religion at every turn, is nonetheless appropriated by the religious.

@resserts if a concept is so nebulous that only one person believes it, it essentially dies, and concepts that are shared live, in a sense

@bbyrd009 It just seems that anything can be justified or validated by that method, and I don't agree that words or concepts illustrate or manifest the existence of what they describe. Concepts themselves are real, but are distinct from what is being conceptualized — which may or may not exist. Just because an idea has influence doesn't mean that what is described by the idea exists or is true or has merit. We could just as easily say that white supremacy is real because it exists in a lot of people's minds, so they've created white supremacy. They believe it and it's had a significant influence on society and history, I'll grant that, and the rest of us know what they mean. But does that mean that what they believe is real? Does it really mean that dark-skinned people are inherently inferior? Of course not. So, in terms of "God," it exists as a word and a vague collection of concepts that's held great sway over society, but that says nothing about whether God — the entity — exists.

@resserts "It just seems that anything can be justified or validated by that method"

i agree; hence the importance of "witnesses"

"and I don't agree that words or concepts illustrate or manifest the existence of what they describe."

yet having a convo even 20 years ago about going to Mars would have been pointless, but today it is being manifest as we speak it, essentially, yes? Enough witnesses agreeing to the pov is what will cause it to manifest. One guy saying "we can go to Mars" = "nutcase."

"Just because an idea has influence doesn't mean that what is described by the idea exists or is true or has merit. We could just as easily say that white supremacy is real because it exists in a lot of people's minds, so they've created white supremacy. "

well imo a black person would argue that White Supremacy is very real, i guess, right. Where did it come from, if not a bunch of ppl agreeing that it was true?

"But does that mean that what they believe is real? Does it really mean that dark-skinned people are inherently inferior? Of course not."

unfortunately to the dead black guy hanging from Jim Crow, these distinctions are irrelevant tho, see, his perception of "real" will trump ours here

@resserts "So, in terms of "God," it exists as a word and a vague collection of concepts that's held great sway over society, but that says nothing about whether God — the entity — exists."

Hence why the Good Samaritan--who would not want to have anything to do with the Priest's nor the Levite's "God"--is nonetheless forwarded as a model to follow; "go and do likewise," while religionists are condemned at every turn

@bbyrd009

Whether we can get to Mars is different from whether Mars exists. Action can be taken, but it says nothing about the current state of being. "White supremacism" is different from "white supremacy." People believe they are superior based on skin color but they aren't actually superior. These distinctions are relevant to whether belief itself makes God real. Regardless, this discussion feels like it's gone as far as it can and is no longer bearing fruit. Thanks for the conversation.

@resserts "see, his perception of "real" will trump ours here"

1

I put the same thing down. Nothing is 100% except real things. I think to say your 100% on somthing that is unprovable is like saying you believe in god but you know he’s not real because you killed him kind of thing, or saying you know everything there is to know. No absolutes to things that are not real. Things like god are not things that need to be proven wrong, they need to be proven real before they can be tested.

an exercise i currently enjoy--bc i am evil lol--is telling Fundies that they cannot state a single absolute truth from the Bible, and trust me, they cannot. Or rather don't trust me, and try lol, but i'm pretty sure i'm agreeing with you here already, right? There was a girl doing it this morning, i end up having to console them lol

0

I'm 100% sure myself, however I'm open minded when it comes to people who have observed the same facts I have and come to a different conclusion.

100% sure is oracle, fwiw i'd stick with 99.9 lol

@bbyrd009 so we're back to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" 99.9 vs 100?

@EricTrommater a point being that you cannot be both 100% sure of something, and also open to other interpretations lol

@bbyrd009 so you can't be 100% sure of something yourself and still respect that other people don't agree with you? That's very illiberal, fundementslist thinking. I'm fact that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

@bbyrd009 but I respect your interpretation of the facts.

@EricTrommater "one of these things
is not like the other..."
lol
i mean c'mon bro, that's the dumbest thing you ever heard, but you respect my interpretation lol, what's itgonnabe

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:18919
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.