Ben Stein Expelled

[Millie]

Personally speaking, I am more of an agnostic than a hard-line atheist. I think it's far more likely than not that God does not exist. At the same time, I don't think we can rule God out altogether. At least not with the knowledge we have yet attained about the universe. It's entirely possible that, someday, we'll become knowledgeable enough about the universe/multiverse/whatever to definitively prove or disprove God's existence. Until then, my personal belief is that God is "extremely unlikely, but not 100% impossible."

If God does exist, I think the earliest and most primitive attempts at understanding God are, ironically, the most accurate. God is probably not an anthropomorphicized persona, as depicted in most of humanity's organized religions. Nor is he a series of anthropomorphicized characters, as depicted in the Hindu pantheon, or the Greco-Roman pantheon, etc. Most likely, "God" is best described as an organizing force. It's less a "cosmic man in the sky," and more an all-encompassing order behind existence. A sort of divine system, if you will. I don't think such a system would necessarily be moral or immoral, perfect or imperfect. It simply is. And I think "it" or "It" is a better pronoun than "He" or "She."

[The Ancient]

There is a lot of that, we just don't have a national voice.

"Hey everyone! I have a faith that provides more questions than answers and really just amounts to a vague presumption about the nature of the universe! Who wants to listen to my voice on the issues!"

So I end up in the middle of a debate between the hard-liners siding against whoever seems to be more inconsiderate at the time.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Millie

Personally speaking, I am more of an agnostic than a hard-line atheist. I think it's far more likely than not that God does not exist. At the same time, I don't think we can rule God out altogether. At least not with the knowledge we have yet attained about the universe. It's entirely possible that, someday, we'll become knowledgeable enough about the universe/multiverse/whatever to definitively prove or disprove God's existence. Until then, my personal belief is that God is "extremely unlikely, but not 100% impossible."

If God does exist, I think the earliest and most primitive attempts at understanding God are, ironically, the most accurate. God is probably not an anthropomorphicized persona, as depicted in most of humanity's organized religions. Nor is he a series of anthropomorphicized characters, as depicted in the Hindu pantheon, or the Greco-Roman pantheon, etc. Most likely, "God" is best described as an organizing force. It's less a "cosmic man in the sky," and more an all-encompassing order behind existence. A sort of divine system, if you will. I don't think such a system would necessarily be moral or immoral, perfect or imperfect. It simply is.

Put me in the hardline atheist camp until shown proof I'm wrong. While I technically agree with your agnostic views Millie, it seems kind of a vague academic distinction. If absolutely *nothing* speaks to the existence of a god, and there's endless ammounts of circumstancial evidence pointing to the contrary, then I'm willing to take the last baby step and declare there is no God.

[PerritoBites]

Whenever someone mentions a God I think of a supreme being with human-like qualities, but he is perfect. I would have no problem in believing there is something out there in the universe that is out of our knowledge reach, that has the power to organize the universe in distinctive ways. But then again, this wouldn't be a God, nor something we should worship.

[Grumath]

Millie is describing Spinoza's god, or an Einsteinian god. That really boils down to semantics more than anything. Like even Richard Dawkins says, if you define god as the harmony and majesty of the unknown workings of the universe, there are no atheists. But that is warping the definition of god.

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by Indiana

If absolutely *nothing* speaks to the existence of a god, and there's endless ammounts of circumstancial evidence pointing to the contrary, then I'm willing to take the last baby step and declare there is no God.

Your *nothing* is achieved by discrediting *somethings* based on your own interpretation. I doubt you are haughty enough to believe you know everything there is to know...is it possible you are discounting signs that point to a higher power, while accepting those that refute it?

My grandmother once told me she knew for a fact there was a God because her husband had an awful gambling addiction that he could not beat, and that finally she couldn't take anymore and privately prayed that he would stop and he did. Now while she told me this story I thought to myself "well sure, but that isn't exactly proof, there are plenty of other factors being left out of this story, etc." I wasn't about to accept her story as proof but that doesn't mean she is wrong. I think there is some evidence that the Bible isn't a work of non-fiction, but I haven't seen anything proving that we are truly a galactic hiccup. What is your "endless circumstantial evidence" to the contrary exactly?

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

Your *nothing* is achieved by discrediting *somethings* based on your own interpretation. I doubt you are haughty enough to believe you know everything there is to know...is it possible you are discounting signs that point to a higher power, while accepting those that refute it?

If you know of even one piece of objective evidence, that points to the excistence of God I'd be happy to hear about it. I suspect you'll come up short however. It really would be incredibly simple for an omnipotent God to set the record straight once and for all. Nothing fancy required really. I have a stale coke on my desk next to me here. If the Lord might endow it with fizzy goodness again, I'll repent my wicked ways immediatly.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Grumath

Millie is describing Spinoza's god, or an Einsteinian god. That really boils down to semantics more than anything. Like even Richard Dawkins says, if you define god as the harmony and majesty of the unknown workings of the universe, there are no atheists. But that is warping the definition of god.

Well, I think the definition of God, as presently accepted by most organized religions, is flawed. The sooner we rework our conception of a divine order, the more sophisticated a conversation we can have about it.

Like I said, I'm in the "more unlikely than likely" camp. But I can't bring myself to cross over to the capital-A Atheist camp.

[Grumath]

Originally Posted by Millie

Well, I think the definition of God, as presently accepted by most organized religions, is flawed. The sooner we rework our conception of a divine order, the more sophisticated a conversation we can have about it.

Like I said, I'm in the "more unlikely than likely" camp. But I can't bring myself to cross over to the capital-A Atheist camp.

Would you consider yourself an atheist in regards to the traditional definition of god? i.e. A personal god that is an all creating, all knowing, sentient being that takes interest in the daily lives of people? Or still agnostic? And once again, semantic arguments come into play, because many definitions and scales of belief I have seen put the "god is very unlikely but not disprovable" idea as an atheistic one. Agnosticism being the 50/50 equal chance of either or the belief that the question cannot ever be answered, or that it does not matter.

[Asmadai]

Originally Posted by Indiana

If you know of even one piece of objective evidence, that points to the excistence of God I'd be happy to hear about it. I suspect you'll come up short however. It really would be incredibly simple for an omnipotent God to set the record straight once and for all. Nothing fancy required really. I have a stale coke on my desk next to me here. If the Lord might endow it with fizzy goodness again, I'll repent my wicked ways immediatly.

I'm glad you brought that up actually. It was a point I was wanting to cover. See, Christianity in itself is a faith based religion. According to the dogma of it, you know that having faith in God Himself is one of backbones of the entire belief system in itself.

This is how I determined actual tangible evidence to prove the existence of God will never be found. If by some chance in hell something was found, say the Ark of the Covenant/Noah's Ark, it will do nothing but cause current shakey-believers to instantaneous believe fully based on factual evidence, and also probably cause a good bit of non-believers to convert, all because there will be something you could see with your own eyes to give some proof to what the Bible's been saying.

By doing that, people would be believing in God for purposes he did not intend them to. Not having proof, but maintaining faith is part of the whole...test for lack of a better word.

To answer your previous two questions, I understand many people (non-believers and believers alike) believe that it's as simple as 'Believers go to Heaven, those who don't go to Hell, no matter what'. I can't say I honestly believe that myself. The way I see it, as I conceive him to be All Loving, He will know if one does not believe in Him, and one does not know of Him, as they are both importantly different things. Those who were at some point in their life given the choice to believe and did not, go the Hell route. Those that never got that chance will be given one. As far as 'good people who aren't believers', I personally believe they should maybe be given a second chance, but I don't call the shots.

As far as allegory talks go, The Bible contains many fables, parables, and true stories to it, most of the time it's almost blatantly said when it's one of those. Each, true or not, are used to convey either good morals, etc.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

To answer your previous two questions, I understand many people (non-believers and believers alike) believe that it's as simple as 'Believers go to Heaven, those who don't go to Hell, no matter what'. I can't say I honestly believe that myself. The way I see it, as I conceive him to be All Loving, He will know if one does not believe in Him, and one does not know of Him, as they are both importantly different things. Those who were at some point in their life given the choice to believe and did not, go the Hell route. Those that never got that chance will be given one. As far as 'good people who aren't believers', I personally believe they should maybe be given a second chance, but I don't call the shots.

As far as allegory talks go, The Bible contains many fables, parables, and true stories to it, most of the time it's almost blatantly said when it's one of those. Each, true or not, are used to convey either good morals, etc.

Thanks for answering my questions. I have a very hard time understanding your rationale though. I kind of expected the whole "if there was evidence, it wouldn't be faith" line of argument. It really underscores what I find so inherently dangerous and subversive with religion. That it values faith over knowledge, and when the two collide, the first is always given priority.

You're saying God created me, but chose not to provide me with a shred of evidence to support that fact, and intends to fry me in the lake of hellfire for all eternity, if I don't believe in him. How does that fit with your notion of a caring loving god? And why does an omnipotent, omniscient god really need an insignificant pissant human to believe in him anyway?

And it's clearly NOT obvious which parts of the bible are allegory and which are fact. There's about as many interpretations of the bible as there are christians on the planet. If you can't present a coherent logical set of criteria for which parts of the bible are fact and which are fiction, then you're reliance on the bible for moral guidance is entirely arbitrary.

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by Millie

Personally speaking, I am more of an agnostic than a hard-line atheist. I think it's far more likely than not that God does not exist. At the same time, I don't think we can rule God out altogether. At least not with the knowledge we have yet attained about the universe. "

That's the official position of just about every atheist in existence.

The word "agnostic" has a cute little etymology. It was created around Darwin's time by one of Darwin's friends named Thoman Henry Huxley. Remember that back then you were likely to get persecuted for being an atheist. Darwin and crew had a hell of a theological fight on their hands as a result of his theories. I suppose that being able to call yourself an agnostic instead of atheist relieved quite a bit of pressure, and was more compatible with the sort of Deism that was kicking around Europe at that time.

The root of of "atheist" is one who does not believe in god.

The root of "theist" is one who does believe in god.

The key verb there is believe. "Agnostic" introduces a new verb, "to know." No one knows. None of us knows. Christians don't know. Muslims don't know. Atheists don't know. Buddhists don't know. It's all a matter of belief. We're all agnostics, and therefore it's a meaningless term.

[The Ancient]

Except when you are someone who is willing to admit you don't know the answer it is helpful to have a word to differentiate yourself from hardliners who know that there is no God.

[Grumath]

I have never heard anyone in a serious context say they KNOW there is no god. At least not someone who is unretarded. "Fairly certain there is no god" and "there is no evidence for god" are different.

[Dirus]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

Except when you are someone who is willing to admit you don't know the answer it is helpful to have a word to differentiate yourself from hardliners who know that there is no God.

I dont think anyone (or hardly anyone) thinks they KNOW there is no god. They just KNOW they dont believe in God.

I guess I would consider myself an atheist because I know I dont believe in god. But I well understand that the posibility of god exists.