Welcome  to the forums.  Saw you mention this in another post which is why I went ahead and tagged you with the agnostic deist badge before.   Though you're still technically a theist, the deist badge just helps make sure you don't get pegged a Christian as is the case with most theists around here =)

Welcome to the forums, TheWanderer!

Any relation to Groo the Wanderer?

Welcome.

There is a lot of contention and misunderstanding about what is means to "believe" something. I think anyone who says they "believe" something should define what this means before any debate can proceed. Does this mean:

A: You hope this is true? A kind of wish thinking?

B: This just an internal feeling you have but you can't offer us any objective evidence to "believe" as you do?

C: You think there is objective evidence to say this is true beyond a reasonable doubt?

D: You know for fact this is absolutely true?

Semantics question: Would it be better to call what you "believe" either a feeling or a personal theory?

Is the evidence that caused you to "believe" a personal revelation or should rational people be able to see the same evidence as you and believe as you believe?

Could you find not believing anything about creation of the universe(unless their is scientific evidence) an acceptable position to take? Or must you "believe" something?

 Can you give us a percentage of how likely your "beliefs" are to be true?

Great. That's all I hope for is people to be honest about what they believe.

But see, the only difference you have from most atheists is that you assign a higher probability to the existence of a creator or interventionist deity. Because you don't believe in Jesus, there is a higher probability of your theories being true than Christian theists. A Mormon belief system would be even more highly improbably since they believe in even more extraordinary claims than most Christians.

What in your mind raised the probability of a Deity existing? I was indoctrinated with religion, I changed cause all the lack of evidence, science and history says to me there is no reason to believe there is a Deity.

Hello TheWanderer, welcome to the forums.

Glad to know you are willing to hear from all sides and then make up your own mind about things. Though, as you have seen, it's a bit more difficult to find a vocal atheist (or any kind of atheist at all) than to find a vocal theist, since atheism, depending on where you live, can sometimes be frowned upon or worst, or simply many atheist are not as eager to be vocal, because they just don't have a "word to spread" so to speak, nor anyone encouraging them to.

Personally, I consider myself an agnostic atheist, I've seen a lot of evidence both for and against the existence of god which if it were to be compared in a scale, it would tip towards the no-god side. And yet, despite of this, it was a philosophical argument that made me concede the possibility for god to exist, though I also recognize that this possibility is quite improbable, to say the least. And besides, quoting that old French graffiti: "If god exists, its his problem".

Anyways, I welcome you again to the forums, and look forward to chat with you again. Enjoy yourself!

That is something I can't deny.

That's because Deists don't restrict themselves with rules that are set in stone like major religions. Also Deists aren't like Christians, after the whole "God is non-interventionist" thing they pretty much branch off from there. Just like Atheists with the whole "There is no God" thing, all Atheists believe that then sort of branch off. For example there are Spiritual Atheists, such as Taoists and some Buddhist sects, and then there are Secular Atheists like yourself.

Now as for your question of what would happen if the origin of the Big Bang were to be discovered.... it would have to depend on the answer. If it disproves God totally then I would go towards Atheism and vice versa.

Actually I live in a very liberal area, so the whole Bible Belt persecution thing is not a problem. In fact I think almost all in my college, in the area, would be very welcoming towards a Secular Organization. It's just that there are either very little secular students (which is possible since it's a small college) or they are not that vocal.

That's been me for the last 5 years or so, except for switching back and forth between Theism and Atheism.

Thanks, and that would be great.

BTW, do you guys refute other religions or just Christianity? Because I've only seen you guys do Christianity (since it's mostly Christians that come on here to challenge you, so I understand) and was just curious.

Yep, all religions and gods are called into question, however since it seems the majority of this forum's members are from/reside in the western part of the world, we are more directly affected by christianity or one of it's flavors, in fact many here are former christians (I'm a former catholic myself), so because of that christianity gets a lot more of attention.

Science will discover more facts and make conclusions about the orgin of the Big Bang. It will answer some question but then create more questions to be answered, like what is the orgin of the things that caused the big bang.

There can't be any scientific evidence to disprove God because by definition, god is a supernatural entity. He is not bound by the rules of science, nature, evidence or logic. Just as there won't be any evidence disprove Santa Claus or the Easter bunny. I can only say based on the evidence and understanding of the known universe, his existence is extremely remote.

I see a lot of arguments refuting belief in a "Flying Spaghetti Monster". I think Christianity is the one form of Theism we are most familiar with because it is influencing(aka poisoning) our society the most.

Actually the rotating christmas eve night would give Santa more time to deliver all his toys around the countries that had christmas celebrations.  If it was nighttime all over the world at the same time he would have a much shorter time period to deliver all the gifts.

I agree that we can't disprove the concept of a god.  That's why I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Depends where exactly it is. Not all places have night time for the same amount of time during the winter. The places near the south pole have sun light practically all day while places have sunlight for practically no time at all. Therefore he would have to start with the Southern Hemisphere first which would mean that he would have to go at a ridiculously fast pace to reach them in time from the N. Pole (which would most probably be too much for any normal human to handle).

Not meaning to knock you, but what exactly is an Agnostic Atheist? I've read little on it but I haven't been able to wrap my mind around the concept completely. How is it different from normal Agnosticism?

I understand what you are saying about reading guys like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. I've learned how smart they are when I watched the 4 Horsemen chat between those three and Dennet (though Hitchen's demeanor can annoy me sometimes).

However I will look for some of the Dawkins vids on this site and check them out to learn more about him.

On that note, I had this situation posed to me by some theist friends some time ago and wondered how you guys would handle it.

One night you are walking in a park in the middle of a safe suburb. There isn't anyone around and no security cameras aren't installed since there aren't that many crimes in this suburban town. As you continue to walk along this path you see something out the corner of your eye. It's a thick wallet that contains about $150 dollars cash, a driver's license, and a credit card. On the driver's license it contains the name of a person, who you never met, and their home address. The question they posed is what sort of reasoning would a non-religious person have to take the money and bring it back to the person. Of course they answered that they would always have God watching them and therefore they would be obliged to return the wallet (though I must say that this is a selfish course of action within itself). However I wonder what sorts of answers you guys can give since there isn't one unified way of thinking among Atheists and other Secularists when it comes to morality (I personally wouldn't think that for instance that Ayn Rand and Karl Marx would have much to agree on in moral). I'd personally went with the Golden Rule and the fact that my conscience would kill me until I do.

The only people that live in Antarctica are researchers.  And the vast majority of them are only there for 4-5 months a year.  There are no children to deliver toys to down there.

People that call themselves Agnostics are in reality agnostic atheists.  They just don't understand the terms.