Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Cavalry Doc, Nov 7, 2010.
I have seen no prof of a god so I will say there is no god.
The forum has a search feature. Go ahead and use it. You'll see.
You're barking up the wrong tree here. The last 8 or more times I was in a church, it was to vote.
Maybe you have never encountered a true agnostic. I have encountered many different people of many different religions. Each individual was unique in their beliefs.
But how do you know for sure? Are you sure?
If you are sure, how are you sure?
Because I never seen one or been shown evidence that proved one same as voids magic pixels. You had no problem being sure about that one.
That's not a valid answer to the true atheists here.
See the OP.
It's a rough crowd for an agnostic too.
pixies, man, pixies.
Millions of demo coders all over the planet have proved over and over again that magic pixels exist.
But the post to which I was responding was clearly not written by an atheist.
Have you personally been shown proof that neutrons exist? Other than just claims in a book (The Koran and Bible have witnessed claims too).
The magic pixies (not pixels) may exist. I am not 100% certain they exist. I really doubt it though, Void* has been tap dancing too much to be a reliable source.
Is there a god or gods?
How do you know for sure, or are you unsure.
Oh, I'm not saying you're not.
It just does seem pretty strange for an agnostic to say something like "Life is simply too complex to have happened without a design."
That's not a statement that it could be possible that it was designed. That's a statement that it's impossible for it to have *not* been. Which is not agnostic - it's a statement claiming specific knowledge that it can't have happened without a designer.
For all I know, you just used stronger wording than you intended to.
Well lets be fair, and apply the same question to all religions, including atheism.
No but im sure I could read some scientific research papers that used test and evidence to come to the conclusion that protons exist, I can't do the same with a god.
Im SURE because nobody can provide evidence that he exist.
Actually, that all depends.
For instance, were I on some island somewhere, and the indigenous people told me that their god was a stone statue that they worshiped, and claimed no unprovable supernatural powers for this god - I'd be quite willing to state "Yes, your god exists".
Of course, that's quite a different kind of god than most people claim to have faith in.
Perhaps it is because I have considered both sides of the question, and have actually been able to consider the valid points of each side, and that has left me unsure?
Both arguments have valid points. I have considered the arguments on both sides well.
Just because I have brought up an argument that shakes your own faith, do not confuse that with my continued agnosticism. It's not my fault if you aren't secure in your beliefs, for I'm not sure myself.
Then why word it in a way that implies surety?
Don't worry - you can't shake something that doesn't exist.
Testimony exists on both sides of the argument. You've just shown that you preferentially prefer one side over the other.
Since you are so sure, and you have no real proof that your position is correct, would you at least agree that your position meets the Webster's definition of "faith"?
If not, why?
I have stated that I have seen evidence from both sides that is convincing. Both sides cannot be right though.
I was asked what evidence I had seen that makes me consider that possibly god does exist. I gave it, and it made several of you itch. Why is that?
Well I'm off, it's late. Sleep on it.
If you can prove that Atheism is not a religion, I'd love to see how you formulate that argument.
So far, the only arguments I've seen, have not convinced me.
My position is I don't know how we got here I just don't buy the god answer. That requires no faith.
What reliable, testable prof exist on the god side. If there was it would require no faith. I don't have to have a faith in how we got here I can say I don't know.
That does not mean I have to take seriously or even come up with evidence for something that some other people say exist with no evidence to prove it. The evidence requirement is on their side.
Mankind has answered life's mysteries with science, if you want to place some form of faith on me I will say I have faith that mankind and science will one day answer the mysteries we have left.
It doesn't take faith to NOT believe something that requires faith. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.
I don't believe that Russel's teapot exists. I don't believe that Vishnu exists. Please formulate an argument that explains how lack of belief in such things is somehow faith that those things don't exist.