[NT] Wondering what NT's....

[INTP]

all religions are misinterpretations about something that isnt supernatural in any way but we just dont know much about it yet

 

[suttree]

How would you characterize that something?

 

[Totenkindly]

w.t.f.? it says i posted this at 8:18 yet i clicked post at 8:26 >.>

it's a miracle!

Atheists, recant.

I realise that this post is going to be incredibly controversial and possibly despised by critics, but as a rational, I do not understand how rationals at least could believe in something so farfetched with no reason. Because I am likely to get flamed for this, I will avoid responding and creating a greater flame war. Gnostic theists can be incredibly hard if not impossible to convince.

Okay -- next time, don't bother posting in the first place if you know it will create a flamewar and you claim to not want to do that. The OP specifically framed this as a non-debate thread.

You can create your own debate thread elsewhere if you like, though. If people can handle it respectfully.

I'm an agnostic "theist," I suppose. I can choose to frame or overlay things from a "Christian mystic" perspective ... but I can't state whether that overlay is actually true or not. I could only choose to believe it is. Belief compensates for lack of evidence

(It might seem odd to quote the writer of Hebrews, a true theist, here, but "Faith is the substance of things hoped for" and the "evidence of things not seen". Philosophically, you can only have faith if you do not have substantial proof. If you have proof, this is called "evidence" and faith is unnecessary.)

 

[copperfish17]

I voted for... Agnostic Atheist!

Agnostic Atheist: "I don't believe in a God, and I don't think we can prove or disprove it."

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

Okay -- next time, don't bother posting in the first place if you know it will create a flamewar and you claim to not want to do that. The OP specifically framed this as a non-debate thread.

You can create your own debate thread elsewhere if you like, though. If people can handle it respectfully.

Mm yeah, sorry. I just get kinda heated up about that kind of thing and thought it was something people really ought to consider. But I guess I shouldn't really have done it (and I missed that part about it being non-debate) so I'll edit my post and get rid of it now.

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

But just wondering, how DO gnostic theists believe we can prove that there is a god. And if we can, why haven't we done it?

 

[INTP]

How would you characterize that something?

how can i characterize something that i dont know what it is?

 

[Shiet_Happens]

hmmm i wonder what the statistics would turn up to be on the other types....should i do a poll for each?

 

[Nicodemus]

Please do. I can't wait.

 

[Shiet_Happens]

kk, ill just do the basic copy and paste

 

[Shiet_Happens]

they all have one now..
Results are as expected but still disheartening...

 

[Tamske]

I chose agnostic atheist, because it's the most fitting choice.
I can't prove there is no god. Just like you can't prove there is no second moon orbiting around the earth. I'm actually quite sure of it, that's why I'd call myself an atheist and not an agnostic. But I can't prove it and I'm not 100% sure, that's why I didn't chose that gnostic atheist thing. What IS a gnostic atheist anyway? Someone who believes there is no god with as much certainty as a theist believes there is at least one? Do they exist? I thought most atheists were of the sort "well I never observed a god so I assume there is none as long as observation doesn't tell me otherwise", like they do with science (well I never observed something fall up instead of down... wait, that helium balloon is going up, I need to readress my assumptions).

I know very well what it would take to change my mind and become a theist. God(dess), if you want me to believe in you, give me a sign that can't be mistaken for a dream, hallucination, human-made thing or natural phenomenon. Be certain I'll check the last one very thoroughly.

 

[Qre:us]

Wondering what NTs' beliefs are.....

Sorry if none of those choices suit you.

I believe in the potential of the human mind to birth all that we conceive. One of its most fascinating gifts, our imaginations.

 

[Stevo]

Just like you can't prove there is no second moon orbiting around the earth.

What possibly makes you think that? There have been many pictures taken from the Earth, the Moon, and from deeper space that demonstrate quite clearly there is only one large celestial object orbiting our planet. If there were more we would measure quite profound and conflicting effects on our tidal cycles and, unless you were suggesting it's invisible or actively hides from our cameras, see it from an acceptable distance from Earth. The hypothesis of a second moon orbiting Earth is quite falsifiable, and has indeed been falsified.

 

[Shiet_Happens]

I believe in the potential of the human mind to birth all that we conceive. One of its most fascinating gifts, our imaginations.

We do need imagination but we still need to distinguish imagination from fact.

and that is not one of religions strong point....just sayin

 

[Shiet_Happens]

What possibly makes you think that? There have been many pictures taken from the Earth, the Moon, and from deeper space that demonstrate quite clearly there is only one large celestial object orbiting our planet. If there were more we would measure quite profound and conflicting effects on our tidal cycles and, unless you were suggesting it's invisible or actively hides from our cameras, see it from an acceptable distance from Earth. The hypothesis of a second moon orbiting Earth is quite falsifiable, and has indeed been falsified.

lol yea, yet somehow there are still some people out there who still think the universe is geocentric /facepalm

 

[Tamske]

What possibly makes you think that? There have been many pictures taken from the Earth, the Moon, and from deeper space that demonstrate quite clearly there is only one large celestial object orbiting our planet. If there were more we would measure quite profound and conflicting effects on our tidal cycles and, unless you were suggesting it's invisible or actively hides from our cameras, see it from an acceptable distance from Earth. The hypothesis of a second moon orbiting Earth is quite falsifiable, and has indeed been falsified.

You've used observation and the assumption that our universe follows predictable, simple patterns which can be known by humans. You've assumed there is something like universal laws of nature.
But you can't be 100% sure of that... 99,9999999999999%, yes, but not 100%. Who says there is no invisible second moon made of magical diamond which is pulled by the earth's gravity but doesn't pull back?
I'm as sure of the non-existence of a god as I am of that second moon. The god hypothesis - "there is at least one being which is more original than us, caused us to be (whether by creating us out of dirt or by manipulating matter and genes over millions of years) and cares about us (whether in a good or a bad way) and wants us to do his will" - is as falsifiable as the second moon hypothesis.

 

[LunarMoon]

I'm a Pantheist with Christian and Deistic leanings. Which is to say that God, an abstract entity encompassing the laws of physics, created the universe and was involved in certain events depicted within the Bible, though mostly within the New Testament. However, I do not believe that God has any involvement in miracles outside of these isolated events. I cannot conceive of God who created the physical laws of the universe only to go against them to help any insignificant member of ape-descended species. Nor do I believe in a God that possesses anything that we would identify as conciousness.

I'm as sure of the non-existence of a god as I am of that second moon. The god hypothesis - "there is at least one being which is more original than us, caused us to be (whether by creating us out of dirt or by manipulating matter and genes over millions of years) and cares about us (whether in a good or a bad way) and wants us to do his will" - is as falsifiable as the second moon hypothesis.

It is not within the realm of science to say that something does or does not exist with any certainty. The most that can be done with non-falsible objects within the universe is to simply remain agnostic on their existence or to state that a set of data points to a particular conclusion.

 

[Stevo]

You've used observation and the assumption that our universe follows predictable, simple patterns which can be known by humans. You've assumed there is something like universal laws of nature.
But you can't be 100% sure of that... 99,9999999999999%, yes, but not 100%. Who says there is no invisible second moon made of magical diamond which is pulled by the earth's gravity but doesn't pull back?
I'm as sure of the non-existence of a god as I am of that second moon. The god hypothesis - "there is at least one being which is more original than us, caused us to be (whether by creating us out of dirt or by manipulating matter and genes over millions of years) and cares about us (whether in a good or a bad way) and wants us to do his will" - is as falsifiable as the second moon hypothesis.

All right, I guess if you want to throw the laws of physics and the rest of the natural sciences out the window, you can come up with whatever ridiculous bullshit you like.

 

[guesswho]

The bible is irrational.