I ABSOLUTELY know that no gods exist

[D i v i n i t y]

Is absolutely KNOWING anything healthy?
Is it bad to claim to absolutely know anything? (religion for example).

For this simple example, let's assume that the God of the Holy Bible exists and that the Bible is inerrant and expresses absolute TRUTH. Now if you strongly believed that Christianity was the way to go, wouldn't you want an atheist or someone from another religion to NOT place their absolute faith in their belief or lack thereof? If so, isn't it only fair that you also give space for doubt in your belief/lack of belief? In that case, isn't it better to assume a position where you accept that you may be wrong?

I only say this because I know a lot of religious people who claim to KNOW that God/Christ exist because they have a personal relationship with him...
Also, I notice that many people say they KNOW that God is just a false delusion. I agree and believe that God is a false delusion but I would never claim to absolutely know that God does not exist. Does anyone agree or disagree? Voice your opinions please :]  

[fhbnfghnbfgbsnbg]

D i v i n i t y

Is absolutely KNOWING anything healthy?
Is it bad to claim to absolutely know anything? (religion for example).

For this simple example, let's assume that the God of the Holy Bible exists and that the Bible is inerrant and expresses absolute TRUTH. Now if you KNEW that Christianity was the way to go, wouldn't you want an atheist or someone from another religion to NOT place their absolute faith in their belief or lack thereof? If so, isn't it only fair that you also give space for doubt in your belief/lack of belief? In that case, isn't it better to assume a position where you accept that you may be wrong?

I only say this because I know a lot of religious people who claim to KNOW that God/Christ exist because they have a personal relationship with him...
Also, I notice that many people say they KNOW that God is just a false delusion. I agree and believe that God is a false delusion but I would never claim to absolutely know that God does not exist. Does anyone agree or disagree? Voice your opinions please :]

Quite true. If one holds a close-minded view that they s=are unwiling to change, that would make them as "bad" as the people they tend to call schizophrentic.

I don't quite understand the first section, though.
If the bible is deemed ABSOLUTE truth, why do you want people not believing in it?
And if it IS absolute truth, how would people even go about not believing?  

[D i v i n i t y]

KuroFur

Quite true. If one holds a close-minded view that they s=are unwiling to change, that would make them as "bad" as the people they tend to call schizophrentic.

I don't quite understand the first section, though.
If the bible is deemed ABSOLUTE truth, why do you want people not believing in it?
And if it IS absolute truth, how would people even go about not believing?

Oh wow... I'm sorry; I just noticed that o.O
I should probably change the wording.
I meant to say that "if you believed strongly that Christianity was the way to go, wouldn't you want an atheist or someone from another religion to NOT place their absolute faith in their belief or lack thereof?"
Even though it IS absolute truth, we don't KNOW that it's absolute truth... we simply have a strong belief in it, but we should still have space for doubt just in case we're wrong, correct?
Skepticism is good right? Having doubts is good and questioning things that simply don't make sense to you is a good thing also right?  

[PathlessPlot]

D i v i n i t y

Skepticism is good right? Having doubts is good and questioning things that simply don't make sense to you is a good thing also right?

Skepticism is great for the mind, but bad for faith. Faith only requires that you be blind and accept everything that you are told by your elders. It is easier to have faith then to look for evidence for and against your beliefs and weigh everything you find in order to make an informed decision. When one keeps their eyes and ears shut one doesn't have to see and hear things one doesn't want to.  

[Elanchana]

But how quickly we forget
Such a sure and perfect plan,
And unlearn the passions that once had burned.

We can't ever really be sure, because there's no real way to disprove a deity's existence. Even Richard Dawkins can't claim that he absolutely knows.

But how could I have seen?
What was I to do?
How could I know I would find you?
-Erik, The Phantom of the Opera, Tom Alonso

 

[D i v i n i t y]

Elanchana

But how quickly we forget
Such a sure and perfect plan,
And unlearn the passions that once had burned.

We can't ever really be sure, because there's no real way to disprove a deity's existence. Even Richard Dawkins can't claim that he absolutely knows.

But how could I have seen?
What was I to do?
How could I know I would find you?
-Erik, The Phantom of the Opera, Tom Alonso

Yup. Which makes it absurd for anyone to claim to absolutely know one way or another, but still... I think it's more crazy to assert that something without any good evidence does exist, rather than not exist.  

[Pilfer von Durem]

Absolutism is fail.

I enjoyed the circular reasoning in your poll. I've encountered it numerous times and wondered if people really thought like that.  

[Missuhs Bunneh]

Haha, your poll is quoting from Edward Current <3  

[Belthasar727]

I am as sure there is no god as I am sure there are no square circles or that up is not down.

You don't need physical evidence to prove everything, something that logically contradicts itself (and god does this at every turn) cannot exist.

I don't think my position is absurd, you guys are expressing agnosticism.  

[D i v i n i t y]

Melchior727

I am as sure there is no god as I am sure there are no square circles or that up is not down.

You don't need physical evidence to prove everything, something that logically contradicts itself (and god does this at every turn) cannot exist.

I don't think my position is absurd, you guys are expressing agnosticism.

I don't claim to be an agnostic because I do honestly believe that no god(s) exist, but I suppose that I express agnosticism since I would believe in God if there were GOOD evidence for it. I don't think, at all, that god's existence is probable but I don't think it's absolutely impossible. I don't believe in square circles either, but I don't think any person on earth applies supernatural traits to any squares or circles. If god could SOMEHOW be a supernatural being that always existed, and created everything then that doesn't really make sense logically, but neither does "everything always existed"
Now, maybe "everything always existed" DOES make sense but we are unable to comprehend it now. Is that possible? Now a theist might go "We simply don't comprehend God's traits right now."
The thing is: no one really absolutely KNOWS how it all began. Some of us simply reject the idea of "God" because it's improbable and seems to be an idea created out of pure ignorance, but that doesn't make it impossible, does it?
This is just my opinion; so anyone criticize my position of they want o.O
srsly, I encourage it if you don't agree with me o.O  

[Belthasar727]

The question of whether existence had a beginning or not makes my head hurt, so I'm not even going to go there. stressed

However I think the god question is more easily solved. Agnosticism by the way is not the "I don't know" position but rather the "it's impossible know" position. I held this position before reading Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith. Give it a read, or at least the first part. He uses a very structured and logical argument. First he launches an all-out attack on agnosticism, then he demonstrates how theism and faith can both be reduced down to agnosticism.

Just to give an example argument; in order for something to exist, it has to have attributes, and by definition an attribute is something that implies limitations. This is uniformity of nature.

Now all the descriptions of God: omnipotence (powers without limits), omniscience (knowledge without limits), eternal (unchanging), etc, break this rule of nature. The argument here is that God is "supernatural" and since he is "beyond" nature he transcends the limits of nature. But if you look at these characteristics they are all negative or "non-attributes." In order for something to conceivably exist it has to have positive attributes that in turn imply limitations, if something is everything then in reality it's nothing.

God cannot do everything because that would have to include things that would undercut his omnipotence (i.e. can he create a rock he himself cannot lift?).

He can't be omniscient because that would contradict his omnipotence, if he knows he will do something in the future can he change his mind? If so he's not omniscient, if not he's not omnipotent (not to mention it would destroy free will, which makes morality in Christianity and the whole heaven-hell thing pointless).

He can't be omnibenevolent because that would remove the matter of choice and morality is dependent on choice. No one can really be good if they had no choice in the matter.

Everything that describes God is everything that reality as we know it is not. If you push the theist into the corner far enough he'll eventual submit into agnosticism ("we really can't know God's true nature, we're too stupid you see").

I know I didn't present the argument as well as Smith, but you get the idea. If something breaks the laws of logic it cannot even conceivably exist (try to imagine a square circle... it's impossible).  

[[The Looney Bin]]

Basically.
You can't prove that god doesn't exist.

Nor can you prove that the boogieman, unicorns, mermaids, and other ridiculous things that we know don't exist.

So basically.

God's right up there with the unicorns and boogiemen.
And I know that they all don't exist.

Now if something were to come about that proved unicorns.
I can't say I would complain~

Basically.
There's a one in infinity chance that god exists.
Because there's an infinite number of possible ideas for religion, each religion having it's own god(s).
So assuming that even one of them is right.
Means that you have a one in infinity chance of having the right one.  

[Belthasar727]

Where exactly did you pull that statistic? And who says we can't disprove the existence of these things?  

[D i v i n i t y]

Melchior727

The question of whether existence had a beginning or not makes my head hurt, so I'm not even going to go there. stressed

However I think the god question is more easily solved. Agnosticism by the way is not the "I don't know" position but rather the "it's impossible know" position. I held this position before reading Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith. Give it a read, or at least the first part. He uses a very structured and logical argument. First he launches an all-out attack on agnosticism, then he demonstrates how theism and faith can both be reduced down to agnosticism.

Just to give an example argument; in order for something to exist, it has to have attributes, and by definition an attribute is something that implies limitations. This is uniformity of nature.

Now all the descriptions of God: omnipotence (powers without limits), omniscience (knowledge without limits), eternal (unchanging), etc, break this rule of nature. The argument here is that God is "supernatural" and since he is "beyond" nature he transcends the limits of nature. But if you look at these characteristics they are all negative or "non-attributes." In order for something to conceivably exist it has to have positive attributes that in turn imply limitations, if something is everything then in reality it's nothing.

God cannot do everything because that would have to include things that would undercut his omnipotence (i.e. can he create a rock he himself cannot lift?).

He can't be omniscient because that would contradict his omnipotence, if he knows he will do something in the future can he change his mind? If so he's not omniscient, if not he's not omnipotent (not to mention it would destroy free will, which makes morality in Christianity and the whole heaven-hell thing pointless).

He can't be omnibenevolent because that would remove the matter of choice and morality is dependent on choice. No one can really be good if they had no choice in the matter.

Everything that describes God is everything that reality as we know it is not. If you push the theist into the corner far enough he'll eventual submit into agnosticism ("we really can't know God's true nature, we're too stupid you see").

I know I didn't present the argument as well as Smith, but you get the idea. If something breaks the laws of logic it cannot even conceivably exist (try to imagine a square circle... it's impossible).

Yeah I like the arguments against God smile
ESPECIALLY the omnipotence and omniscience one. It depends on someone's definition of "god". I mean one can define it as the Christian omnipotent AND omniscient god, but what if someone's definition of "God" was a simply a supreme being that created everything?
I honestly do not believe in this but I'm just saying... what if God weren't all powerful, weren't all knowing and weren't benevolent. What if God didn't give a s**t? Well of course this still doesn't discredit a lot of attributes like God being eternal... I don't even understand the point in asserting God as an explanation to questions we can't answer. That's why I'm not a theist. What if God were not subject to how we perceive logic because God transcends logic? It sounds pretty absurd, I know Lol, but I'm just curious as to how someone would approach this question if asked. I'm expecting "What? Nothing can 'transcend' logic" but is there any other answer? smile  

[[The Looney Bin]]

Melchior727

Where exactly did you pull that statistic? And who says we can't disprove the existence of these things?

I don't think we can disprove it.
Just like we can't disprove Dawkins's magic teapot floating in space on the exact opposite side of the sun, so we've never been able to see it, but because of "faith", we know that the teapot is there~