What do you REALLY believe?

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.

Zeus was omniscient, in the present tense. I don't remember if he could see into the future, but as 'lord of the skies' he could see everything that was happening in the world of men. Of course, he had to actively use that ability.

As for JHVH being omni-benevolent (rabid A/Theists aside), the bible doesn't say he is "all good" from what i remember. It says quite explicitly that he is all things, and their creator. http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm

as for being omnipotent, the bible has TONNES of things that God can't do, making his a fairly limited Deity. God can't Lie, be wrong, stop existing, duplicate/create "equal" beings, learn, become "not god", force you to speak and all sorts of other biblical things and logical traps.

but things like this are bound to happen. we just can't admit that IF such a thing as God exists, we have no fucking clue what that thing might be, and have no chance to. so why bother? even Middle-of-the-Road is a bias, a human projection.

To be fair to theology, God's inability to lie, be wrong, stop existing, create equal beings, or learn is not a limit on God but a limit on the nature of the universe: if God "lied," then what the lie he told would, by definition, be the truth - reality would instantaneously transform itself to his declaration. :P just playing devil's advocate.

Right, so whenever God wanted people to believe things that weren't true, he would send lying spirits and put them into the mouths of prophets, usually when he was pissed at the current king of Judah, and wanted the king's prophet to give him bad advice.

[Faust]

I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.

Did I get that right?

I agree with that.  I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.

[Phox]

Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.

Omniscient, yes, technically. Omnipotent, depending on what you define potency as. More benevolent than Ouranos or Kronos. The rest of what you said is not entirely accurate. It's not clear whether the gods lived on the actual Mount Olympus (not necessarily, and also somewhat unlikely since the gods were divided into cthonic gods and Olympians which seemed to be differentiating between gods that lived on the physical earth and "sky" gods., AND Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades split creation. Zeus got the sky, Poseidon the sea, and Hades the underworld, with the earth being neutral ground.)

And Jupiter WAS omnipotent and did exist outside creation, in a sense. In Ovid, a god (probably Jupiter, though not explicitly stated to be), separated all the elements from Chaos and put them in their natural places.

Shiva? Nope, he's none of those things.

Depends on the school. Sometimes he's an aspect/avatar of a more powerful over deity that does meet those qualifications.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.

Zeus was omniscient, in the present tense. I don't remember if he could see into the future, but as 'lord of the skies' he could see everything that was happening in the world of men. Of course, he had to actively use that ability.

As for JHVH being omni-benevolent (rabid A/Theists aside), the bible doesn't say he is "all good" from what i remember. It says quite explicitly that he is all things, and their creator. http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm

as for being omnipotent, the bible has TONNES of things that God can't do, making his a fairly limited Deity. God can't Lie, be wrong, stop existing, duplicate/create "equal" beings, learn, become "not god", force you to speak and all sorts of other biblical things and logical traps.

but things like this are bound to happen. we just can't admit that IF such a thing as God exists, we have no fucking clue what that thing might be, and have no chance to. so why bother? even Middle-of-the-Road is a bias, a human projection.

Rapid succession posts incoming, just as a heads up:
1.) Bible implies moral deity. Doesn't say he considers himself beholden to same morals. (Actually indicates opposite)
2.) Tonnes- you're not American, are you? You fooled me you sneaky fuck.
3.) This is kinda like the whole All-Powerful/Unmoveable argument
4.) From a Christian perspective, the Omnipotent God did chose to limit himself by becoming all messiah-y and dying and shit, just as a vacation, to see what it was like, whatever. If I ever became a Christian again, I would have to admit that while God knows everything, doesn't mean he understands it, nor his creation (we don't really ascribe "All-Understanding" to gods); and had to become his creation to see that he shouldn't be a pissy plaguey oh shit im gunna fuck you uppy deity.
5.) Number 4's likelihood approaches zero.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.

Did I get that right?

I agree with that.  I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.

Combined together it creates a different connotation.
An agnostic atheist says, "I don't know, but I don't believe in X"
An agnostic theist says, "I don't know, but I believe in X"
A gnostic atheist says, "I know for a fact X doesn't exist, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
A gnostic theist says, "I know for a fact X exists, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."

I consider atheist and agnostic very easy words to put together. The first part says, "I don't know but..." and the second part is, "I'm inclined to believe [insert belief]"

Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.

Omniscient, yes, technically. Omnipotent, depending on what you define potency as. More benevolent than Ouranos or Kronos. The rest of what you said is not entirely accurate. It's not clear whether the gods lived on the actual Mount Olympus (not necessarily, and also somewhat unlikely since the gods were divided into cthonic gods and Olympians which seemed to be differentiating between gods that lived on the physical earth and "sky" gods., AND Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades split creation. Zeus got the sky, Poseidon the sea, and Hades the underworld, with the earth being neutral ground.)

And Jupiter WAS omnipotent and did exist outside creation, in a sense. In Ovid, a god (probably Jupiter, though not explicitly stated to be), separated all the elements from Chaos and put them in their natural places.

Shiva? Nope, he's none of those things.

Depends on the school. Sometimes he's an aspect/avatar of a more powerful over deity that does meet those qualifications.

Phox knows her shit on this topic. I can admit that her knowledge of it surpasses mine.

/end responses before new responses

[Phox]

Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.

Blight is correct.

Phox knows her shit on this topic.

Blight is correct. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.

Blight is correct.

Phox knows her shit on this topic.

Blight is correct. 

[Faust]

I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.

Did I get that right?

I agree with that.  I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.

Combined together it creates a different connotation.
An agnostic atheist says, "I don't know, but I don't believe in X"
An agnostic theist says, "I don't know, but I believe in X"
A gnostic atheist says, "I know for a fact X doesn't exist, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
A gnostic theist says, "I know for a fact X exists, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."

I consider atheist and agnostic very easy words to put together. The first part says, "I don't know but..." and the second part is, "I'm inclined to believe [insert belief]"

Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.

Ah, that clears it up.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Naturally, the only rational thing to call oneself is an agnostic when it comes to ir/religious things (with optional belief qualifiers thrown on top). Cuz if God does come down and start talking to you, you might be crazy, so you'll still have that "I don't know" thing going on. Well, that and it could be some sort of other entity claiming to be God. Likewise, no one will be able to scientifically disprove the existence of a God, since its not really something that can be measured or subjected to the scientific method. 

[Jasper]

For those of us who like our religious faith to be extra logically valid.

 

You can also use rationality to thoroughly discard theism if you treat it as a hypothesis.

Good hypotheses are based on previous observations, have clear predictions, and are actually testable.

Find me when you get that far and I'll switch to agnosticism.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

For those of us who like our religious faith to be extra logically valid.

 

You can also use rationality to thoroughly discard theism if you treat it as a hypothesis.

Good hypotheses are based on previous observations, have clear predictions, and are actually testable.

Find me when you get that far and I'll switch to agnosticism.

Roger's tongue got stuck in a printer. Twice. This is an observation. It was repeated.
Prediction: further calamities will ensue.
Hypothesis: Cacotheism. Either that or god likes to pick on Roger in particular
Test: ?

[Jasper]

ISOLATE


YOUR MOTHERFUCKING


VARIABLES



(also I lol'd)

[Requia ☣]

I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.

Did I get that right?

I agree with that.  I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.

Combined together it creates a different connotation.
An agnostic atheist says, "I don't know, but I don't believe in X"
An agnostic theist says, "I don't know, but I believe in X"
A gnostic atheist says, "I know for a fact X doesn't exist, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
A gnostic theist says, "I know for a fact X exists, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."

I consider atheist and agnostic very easy words to put together. The first part says, "I don't know but..." and the second part is, "I'm inclined to believe [insert belief]"

Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.

The word gnostic is fucked up enough as it is, you don't need to keep mutilating it.

[Phox]

I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.

Did I get that right?

I agree with that.  I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.

Combined together it creates a different connotation.
An agnostic atheist says, "I don't know, but I don't believe in X"
An agnostic theist says, "I don't know, but I believe in X"
A gnostic atheist says, "I know for a fact X doesn't exist, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
A gnostic theist says, "I know for a fact X exists, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."

I consider atheist and agnostic very easy words to put together. The first part says, "I don't know but..." and the second part is, "I'm inclined to believe [insert belief]"

Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.

The word gnostic is fucked up enough as it is, you don't need to keep mutilating it.

Don't follow you. What do you mean?