Is God real post your thoughts!

[AlexDT]

Strong atheism: God doesn't exist. Assuming a negative.

 

 

 

I am not justifying theism, nor denying atheism as a whole. I'm merely saying that I don't understand how agnosticism isn't logical from your point of view.

 

 

 

EDIT: If we're both agnostics I don't see why we're arguing, when our point of view is the same :-k .

 

 

 

Ok, allow me to clarify to the best of my ability. Saying that 'God doesn't exist' is just as silly as saying that 'unicorns don't exist'. They might. Perhaps in another galaxy, evolution ended up giving horses a single horn on their head. Actually, now that I think of it, unicorns are probably more likely to exist than God.

 

It's just that the existence of God is so overwhelmingly unlikely, and yes, unnecessary, that I can't see any reason to classify myself as an agnostic.

 

 

 

I'm 99% atheist/1% agnostic, and you're perhaps 40%/60%. I really have no idea.

 

 

 

I think I've ended up confusing even myself now, the definitions are far too fuzzy.

[warri0r45]

 

c) No reason to do so anyway, since the odds of his existence are so overwhelmingly low (a rushed rebuke of Pascal's Wager)

 

Ergo, I don't see how agnosticism is a rational stance. Perhaps technical agnosticism, but I'm going to stick with 99.99(andafewmorenines)% atheism.

 

 

 

Why do you say that? I hear Dawkins towing this line but I've never understood the rationale behind it. How can you claim the odds of something which by definition is not amenable to be detected or measured? I can know the odds of a coin toss or the roll of some dice, but that's because I actually know and can observe the outcome of each trial.

 

 

 

Having said that, I don't think not being able to determine the probability of god existing works in his favour.

 

What's the likelihood of your computer being transported halfway across the world, because every atom decided to move in a certain direction simultaneously? Is it low? Yes. Is it measurable? Probably not. That's pretty much the only way that a creator god could come into existence - if he spontaneously appeared at around the same time as the Big Bang. Also, there are a lot of religions - picking the right god lowers your odds significantly.

 

 

 

I understand the point on religion and the unlikely notion that one out of thousands is the correct one, but I'm not satisfied with the other part to your answer.

 

 

 

With the computer example, I don't see how that relates to the notion of god because god isn't made of atoms. To believers, a god is something beyond our worldly reality. While I find the concept of god wholly unbelievable myself, I still don't see how you can seriously expect to put a figure of probability on his existence.

 

 

 

Also, what makes you say this: "That's pretty much the only way that a creator god could come into existence - if he spontaneously appeared at around the same time as the Big Bang." Why is that the case? Believers often claim that god is timeless and has existed "forever".

 

 

 

It's this completely transcendant defintion that, to me, makes putting a probability on god's existance laughable.

[AlexDT]

[hide=]

 

c) No reason to do so anyway, since the odds of his existence are so overwhelmingly low (a rushed rebuke of Pascal's Wager)

 

Ergo, I don't see how agnosticism is a rational stance. Perhaps technical agnosticism, but I'm going to stick with 99.99(andafewmorenines)% atheism.

 

 

 

Why do you say that? I hear Dawkins towing this line but I've never understood the rationale behind it. How can you claim the odds of something which by definition is not amenable to be detected or measured? I can know the odds of a coin toss or the roll of some dice, but that's because I actually know and can observe the outcome of each trial.

 

 

 

Having said that, I don't think not being able to determine the probability of god existing works in his favour.

 

What's the likelihood of your computer being transported halfway across the world, because every atom decided to move in a certain direction simultaneously? Is it low? Yes. Is it measurable? Probably not. That's pretty much the only way that a creator god could come into existence - if he spontaneously appeared at around the same time as the Big Bang. Also, there are a lot of religions - picking the right god lowers your odds significantly.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I understand the point on religion and the unlikely notion that one out of thousands is the correct one, but I'm not satisfied with the other part to your answer.

 

 

 

With the computer example, I don't see how that relates to the notion of god because god isn't made of atoms. To believers, a god is something beyond our worldly reality. While I find the concept of god wholly unbelievable myself, I still don't see how you can seriously expect to put a figure of probability on his existence.

 

 

 

Also, what makes you say this: "That's pretty much the only way that a creator god could come into existence - if he spontaneously appeared at around the same time as the Big Bang." Why is that the case? Believers often claim that god is timeless and has existed "forever".

 

 

 

It's this completely transcendant defintion that, to me, makes putting a probability on god's existance laughable.

 

 

 

I see where you're coming from. However, to me, the idea that God exists in some 'supernatural realm', or that he 'isn't made of atoms', is also laughable, and doesn't help the problem at all. It makes it worse, because then you need to prove that a supernatural realm exists. And if he isn't made of atoms, then he doesn't exist, and existence is a prerequisite of, well, existence. And again, the idea that God is without time goes against Occam's Razor. It's also unprovable.

[Rebdragon]

And if he isn't made of atoms, then he doesn't exist, and existence is a prerequisite of, well, existence.

 

False. On the former.

[AlexDT]

And if he isn't made of atoms, then he doesn't exist, and existence is a prerequisite of, well, existence.

 

False. On the former.

 

 

 

Fine. He exists as an idea, as neurochemicals in our brains. Otherwise, I don't see how that statement works. I am always open to scientific enlightenment, however.

[Saru Inc]

Stop being an [wagon], I've already said this keyboard is broken, it has this wierd malfunction with it. We can't figure it out. Anyways, it in no way hinders any ability, you just can't debate so you resort to that. Plus, to my knowledge, only once did I say that. And you've shown me nothing to convince me.

 

 

 

And Warri0r, depsite me having a 100+ in Biology all year, and getting a really high score on the SOL, I just can't see how Abiogensis is possible. Even seeing that page, I just can't fathom how something can come from nothing without divine intervention.

 

 

 

Does your keyboard also make you place commas in the wrong places?

 

 

 

I can't debate? This is coming from someone who actually believes that the sun stood in the sky for a day, and then provides biased sources which, much like the person posting links to them, provides no factual evidence to back up it's claim.

 

 

 

I can't debate? This is coming from the person who thinks that having a good grade in high school Biology put him on par with top scientists around the world. "Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it can't exist", right?

 

 

 

I can't debate? This is coming from the person who consistently provides hearsay evidence and proceeds to act like those sources are infallible. Without providing sound, scientific evidence your claims are nothing to the educated community.

 

 

 

I can't debate? This is coming from the person who has resorted to name calling more than any other person involved in the topic, and acts as if he's defeated the other person's point.

 

 

 

Abiogenesis?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-def ... iogenesis/

 

 

 

Abiogenesis is NOT, NOT, NOT something coming from nothing. Modern science does not consider Aristotelian abiogensis to be the modern, working definition, as it is easily disproven.

 

 

 

"The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. This is a significantly different thing from the concept of Aristotelian abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of complex organisms."

 

 

 

Still don't understand? I suggest you read up. It's not acceptable to be willingfully ignorant of what's going on in the field of modern science, and debate as if you are well informed.

 

 

 

 

 

Say wha? No, about the commas, but sometimes when I press a certain key, another one will pop up. Anyways, let's move on.

 

 

 

1) I did provide a link, about the sun. And, in what way can anything about religion not be biased, following your logic then?

 

 

 

Also, I never said I was top par, I was just saying, that I have a basic understanding of Biology, and it didn't make sense. I was trying to udnerstand it, not say it couldn't exist.

 

 

 

Consistently? Nope, how about once. You keep on bringing that up, why....?

 

 

 

Lastly, most people are name calling also, by your standards, but more subliminally (sp?). You gotta know what they're talking about, and if you do you realize that they're calling you an ignorant moron, just not with those words. ;)

 

 

 

And NoMoreDead, what the heck? What's with the vendetta... "willfully ignorant" uh huh... So not understanding something is being wilfully ignorant? Sounds like you're bring willfully pompous.

[Obtaurian]

 

The big flaw that pops up in your arguments again and again is this assumption that a god follows any sort of logic.

 

 

 

Ah, a deus ex machina. How cute. Assumedly, it is also true that hueless verdant notions slumber angrily.

 

 

 

Until you can prove to me that anything else in existence is able to operate beyond the laws of logic, I can only come to the conclusion that a god cannot either.

 

*Laughs quietly*

 

 

 

I just told you that the laws of physics did not exist a millionth of a second after the Big Bang. Does that sound logical to you? It doesn't to me, but it is what it is.

 

 

 

Your linguistic eloquence, nor your condescension make your argument any better.

[Obtaurian]

 

Say wha? No, about the commas, but sometimes when I press a certain key, another one will pop up. Anyways, let's move on.

 

 

 

1) I did provide a link, about the sun. And, in what way can anything about religion not be biased, following your logic then?

 

 

 

Also, I never said I was top par, I was just saying, that I have a basic understanding of Biology, and it didn't make sense. I was trying to udnerstand it, not say it couldn't exist.

 

 

 

Consistently? Nope, how about once. You keep on bringing that up, why....?

 

 

 

Lastly, most people are name calling also, by your standards, but more subliminally (sp?). You gotta know what they're talking about, and if you do you realize that they're calling you an ignorant moron, just not with those words. ;)

 

 

 

And NoMoreDead, what the heck? What's with the vendetta... "willfully ignorant" uh huh... So not understanding something is being wilfully ignorant? Sounds like you're bring willfully pompous.

 

 

 

Quite possibly one of the worst defenses I've ever seen. You did not meet any of his points.

[AlexDT]

 

The big flaw that pops up in your arguments again and again is this assumption that a god follows any sort of logic.

 

 

 

Ah, a deus ex machina. How cute. Assumedly, it is also true that hueless verdant notions slumber angrily.

 

 

 

Until you can prove to me that anything else in existence is able to operate beyond the laws of logic, I can only come to the conclusion that a god cannot either.

 

*Laughs quietly*

 

 

 

I just told you that the laws of physics did not exist a millionth of a second after the Big Bang. Does that sound logical to you? It doesn't to me, but it is what it is.

 

 

 

Your linguistic eloquence, nor your condescension make your argument any better.

 

And your parroting does not make your argument any clearer. If your argument is simply "there's a ridiculously slim possibility that some sort of god might exist", then I'm with you. If your argument is "before the Big Bang, logic didn't exist. Because God isn't logical, God must have existed then as well, therefore he exists", then I'm not with you, for obvious reasons. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth at all, believe me. I just don't really know what you're getting at. Perhaps you could borrow my (very disputable) eloquence for a moment, and tell me? To be honest, I'd rather work on a percentage system. 100% agnosticism is the belief that the chances of God existing and not existing are exactly the same, and so on.

[Saru Inc]

 

Say wha? No, about the commas, but sometimes when I press a certain key, another one will pop up. Anyways, let's move on.

 

 

 

1) I did provide a link, about the sun. And, in what way can anything about religion not be biased, following your logic then?

 

 

 

Also, I never said I was top par, I was just saying, that I have a basic understanding of Biology, and it didn't make sense. I was trying to udnerstand it, not say it couldn't exist.

 

 

 

Consistently? Nope, how about once. You keep on bringing that up, why....?

 

 

 

Lastly, most people are name calling also, by your standards, but more subliminally (sp?). You gotta know what they're talking about, and if you do you realize that they're calling you an ignorant moron, just not with those words. ;)

 

 

 

And NoMoreDead, what the heck? What's with the vendetta... "willfully ignorant" uh huh... So not understanding something is being wilfully ignorant? Sounds like you're bring willfully pompous.

 

 

 

Quite possibly one of the worst defenses I've ever seen. You did not meet any of his points.

 

 

 

And how did I not..? NoMoreDead is just looking for a fight, actually.

[Cup Lion]

In that case, fight somewhere else.

[Perakp]

God is not only useless, he is also harmful in some cases.

 

Without God we could more easily pass forevertaking arguments of right and wrong; death sentence, euthanasia, abortion etc.

 

Without God, we could forsake our moral principles easier! That's just what we want.

 

 

 

To be fair, I think he was talking more about specific moral principles which are more or less religiously based. E.g. opposition to stem cell research, abortion, homosexual relationships, euthanasia, etc. Without religion, we wouldn't turn into mindless savages with no ethics, we'd just reconsider moral stances on issues that most of the time religion has the moral monopoly over.

 

 

 

Yeah that's what I meant, well put, thanks :thumbsup:

 

 

 

Anyways. Something I truly believe in is that all religions are wrong. Period. Not because they're lying, or because they don't understand, but because they have been reduced to words. You can't do that to God. Which, I believe, connects us all and was first created when the very first creature in the universe became self-seeing. Whether us or not, I don't know.

 

 

 

You could really call my belief in God a number of things, but love would be a good example. And thanks to this self-conscious love, I believe we literally enter God - and, thus, enter everything in the universe - when we die - existing forevermore in the magical, evolving land of this void full of and minus God.

 

 

 

I'm sure you know of the Last Supper, correct? Well, I believe Jesus of Nazareth could constantly see into this universe of love. And at the Last Supper, He realized that we could not see into this region (as a living mortal being) as He could. So, a few scrapes of skin into the bread and a few drops of blood into the wine. His Disciples literally ate of Him. And thus, they could see as he could. They tried writing about the experience, but whether it drove them mad or whether they could not simply put it into words, I do not know.

 

 

 

So, they could see as He could, and as only we humans can at particularly climactic moments of joy in our lives. The Disciples did not carry on Jesus' work, instead hoping that words could help teach people this.

 

 

 

Words cannot.

 

 

 

So, there are my beliefs in a nutshell! :

 

:thumbup: I like your nutshells

 

 

 

About the bolded part.

 

It's very hard to believe something you can't understand or put to words.

 

I can see your believes of the afterlife have some similarities compared to mine. I call this "void" "nothingness". It's hard to think what this "entering God - and, thus, entering everything in the universe" "feels" like, as it's hard to think what "not existing" "feels" like. We have never been there, so we can only imagine what it could be like, and the only perspective we have is tied to this physical world. The task to explain it is impossible, thus it's pointless to try and meaningless, because you're dead and not coming back to physical beingness.

 

 

 

editing my post doesnt make it any clearer, someone care to rephrase it? :wall: #-o

[venomai]

I'm 99% atheist/1% agnostic, and you're perhaps 40%/60%. I really have no idea.

 

By definition, you are 100% atheist and 100% agnostic.

 

 

 

I am always open to scientific enlightenment, however.

 

What about non-scientific enlightenment? :)

 

 

 

100% agnosticism is the belief that the chances of God existing and not existing are exactly the same, and so on.

 

This is incorrect by most definitions of agnosticism. Here is a more accurate explanation of agnosticism:

 

 

 

Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.

 

 

 

A means without and gnosis means knowledge. Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods. It may be technically correct, but rare, to use the word in reference to any other knowledge as well, for example: I am agnostic about whether O.J. Simpson actually killed his ex-wife.

 

 

 

Despite such possible usages, it remains the case that the term agnosticism is used fairly exclusively with respect to a single issue: do any gods exist or not? Those who disclaim any such knowledge or even that any such knowledge is possible are properly labeled agnostics. Everyone who claims that such knowledge is possible or that they have such knowledge might be called gnostics.

 

From: About.com - What is Agnosticism?

 

 

 

You are either agnostic or gnostic. There are no percentages... it's a simple one or the other!

 

 

 

Remember, gnosticism does not necessarily dictate one's belief in god -- some theists are gnostic, and others are agnostic. For example, a strong believer in god may come to accept their ignorance (i.e. lack of knowledge), thus becoming an agnostic theist.

[BlueLancer]

Agnosticism is the only rational stance towards religion.

 

 

 

No, it's not.

 

 

 

Since you chose to just reply with 3 words, I take it you misunderstood the broader message...

 

 

 

You're free to believe in the absence of Gods or in the existence of them, I meant it from an encyclopedic, neutral view... Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines a 'God':

 

 

 

one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

 

 

 

Since you can't produce plausible, testable evidence neither towards the existence of a God nor towards the absence of one, the result is "unknown", just as in a crime without witnesses or inconclusive evidence, a verdict cannot be reached based on assumptions or personal experiences/perceptions.

 

 

 

Rational and personal beliefs can be separate. There are people who are christians/muslims by personal preference, yet completely understand it's a possibility a God might not exist. There are many non-religious people who understand it might be possible a God exists.

 

• 
   
  [*:2v6ezbw6]Personal belief: That man is rude and has a history of violence, I can just feel he killed the prime minister.
   
  [*:2v6ezbw6]Rational belief: Since the security camera wasn't on and there were no eyewitnesses, there is no way to know if he was guilty or not.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  [*:2v6ezbw6]Personal belief: I simply know a God exists/doesn't exist. Anybody else is an idiot and is wrong.
   
  [*:2v6ezbw6]Rational belief: I don't have conclusive evidence either way, he either exists or he doesn't.

[I_am_Geed]

Explain people who survive from diseases with less then 10% survival rates?

 

 

 

god is real

[NoMoreDead]

[hide=]

 

Say wha? No, about the commas, but sometimes when I press a certain key, another one will pop up. Anyways, let's move on.

 

 

 

1) I did provide a link, about the sun. And, in what way can anything about religion not be biased, following your logic then?

 

 

 

Also, I never said I was top par, I was just saying, that I have a basic understanding of Biology, and it didn't make sense. I was trying to udnerstand it, not say it couldn't exist.

 

 

 

Consistently? Nope, how about once. You keep on bringing that up, why....?

 

 

 

Lastly, most people are name calling also, by your standards, but more subliminally (sp?). You gotta know what they're talking about, and if you do you realize that they're calling you an ignorant moron, just not with those words. ;)

 

 

 

And NoMoreDead, what the heck? What's with the vendetta... "willfully ignorant" uh huh... So not understanding something is being wilfully ignorant? Sounds like you're bring willfully pompous.

 

 

 

Quite possibly one of the worst defenses I've ever seen. You did not meet any of his points.

 

 

 

And how did I not..? NoMoreDead is just looking for a fight, actually.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Actually, I'm looking for you to back up your points with factual evidence, something which you seem to have some sort of issue with.

[BlueLancer]

Explain people who survive from diseases with less then 10% survival rates?

 

 

 

god is real

 

 

 

Probably troll, but let's try anyways.. Isn't it kind of obvious that if a million people get a difficult cancer for example.. By definition, 100,000 of them will survive by normal treatment with a 10% survival rate without any 'divine intervention'?

 

 

 

The rest as a peer group will die no matter if a God exists/how religious or atheist they were due to the nature of the disease, if the 10% figure holds true.

 

 

 

By your logic people who win the lottery are also blessed by God since the chance to win in a six-number lottery is 1 out of 14 million. It's nothing more than pure mathematical chance, if 40 million people play the lottery with varying random numbers on each coupon, it would be less likely for somebody not to win it (since 40 million coupons with a 1:14m winning ratio has a positive expectancy ratio in the long run)

 

 

 

Likewise, for every hundred/thousand/million people who die of an uncurable disease such as AIDS, there is a very small % who are born with a genetic mutation/the bodies develop resistance to it by random chance[1], mostly in african/asian countries. It has nothing to do with a God

[Lateralus]

Explain people who survive from diseases with less then 10% survival rates?

 

 

 

god is real

 

 

 

Probably troll, but let's try anyways.. Isn't it kind of obvious that if a million people get a difficult cancer for example.. By definition, 100,000 of them will survive by normal treatment with a 10% survival rate without any 'divine intervention'?

 

 

 

The rest as a peer group will die no matter how religious or atheist they were due to the nature of the disease, if the 10% figure holds true.

 

 

 

That has to be trolling. I'd be upset if someone on my side of the debate made a point as silly as that.

[Joes_So_Cool]

Wow, this thread has gotten large, I surely don't have even enough time to read 1/10th of your responses, but glad to see you're still interested in this topic! =D>

[Rebdragon]

Wow, this thread has gotten large, I surely don't have even enough time to read 1/10th of your responses, but glad to see you're still interested in this topic! =D>

 

God DAMMIT. Stop [bleep]ing patting yourself on the back about creating a topic that's been around for MILLENIA before you were even a single cell.

 

 

 

Ugh. It needed to be said mate.

[Lenticular_J]

 

Exactly. It is hard. But a sort of example (and note that I, too, am lying, according to my earlier definition) would be morals. You can somewhat be taught them, but there's still within all of us some sense of "right" and "wrong".

 

 

 

Or, another, less apt example. Nearly every human child, when asked to draw their house, will put a triangle atop a square. It's just hardwired into us.

 

 

 

That's how I feel this whole thing could have been, had the Disciples not been most likely driven mad with the beauty of this realm. After all, seeing crazy [cabbage] like that would be much more fun alive than dead.

 

 

 

God DAMMIT. Stop [bleep]ing patting yourself on the back about creating a topic that's been around for MILLENIA before you were even a single cell.

 

 

 

Ugh. It needed to be said mate.

 

Well, if you want to get into all technicalities, we're all evolved and reproduced from one single cell billions of years ago.

[BlueLancer]

 

Or, another, less apt example. Nearly every human child, when asked to draw their house, will put a triangle atop a square. It's just hardwired into us.

 

 

 

Well, it's really not on the topic, but you ought to see it from the perspective of truly "every human child" in that case.

 

 

 

Houses in Asia, African countries, Spain, Middle-East don't usually have a triangle-top roof. It's almost exclusively a western phenomena (chinese and japanese buddhist/shinto temples do often have triangle roofs though)

 

 

 

As you see, it's really just perception. You might think it's hard-wired into kids to draw the same kind of house, but in the majority of countries, a house is usually pretty much a square with a flat roof and white/light walls to deflect heat from the sun.

 

 

 

Not just in a debate, but also in the real world, it's good to think about every perspective, not just your own. It will give you a much more realistic and accurate view of the world.

 

 

 

Likewise, no matter if you're a hindu, buddhist, christian, jew or muslim, remember that about 75% of the world's population don't follow your religion (and if you're an agnostic or atheist, that's about 80% of the world population that disagrees) [1]

[AlexDT]

100% agnosticism is the belief that the chances of God existing and not existing are exactly the same, and so on.

 

This is incorrect by most definitions of agnosticism. Here is a more accurate explanation of agnosticism:

 

 

 

Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.

 

 

 

A means without and gnosis means knowledge. Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods. It may be technically correct, but rare, to use the word in reference to any other knowledge as well, for example: I am agnostic about whether O.J. Simpson actually killed his ex-wife.

 

 

 

Despite such possible usages, it remains the case that the term agnosticism is used fairly exclusively with respect to a single issue: do any gods exist or not? Those who disclaim any such knowledge or even that any such knowledge is possible are properly labeled agnostics. Everyone who claims that such knowledge is possible or that they have such knowledge might be called gnostics.

 

From: About.com - What is Agnosticism?

 

 

 

You are either agnostic or gnostic. There are no percentages... it's a simple one or the other!

 

 

 

Remember, gnosticism does not necessarily dictate one's belief in god -- some theists are gnostic, and others are agnostic. For example, a strong believer in god may come to accept their ignorance (i.e. lack of knowledge), thus becoming an agnostic theist.

 

 

 

Look, I understand that you're trying to be clever, I really do. However, misquoting me is not a good idea. I do actually understand the etymology of the word 'agnosticism'. So, I must know that the definition of agnosticism you've quoted me on is not shared by anyone else. If you'd bothered to read all of my post, you would have understood that it was merely a tool I was employing to gauge another poster's level of agnosticism. Let me give you an example:

 

 

 

 

 

On one end of the spectrum is the atheist, who is convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no God, probably due to evidence, and lack thereof. In the middle is the agnostic, who is of the opinion that, employing our current understanding of the world, we still cannot begin to scratch at the question of whether or not God exists. Then, of course, there's the theist, who has faith for some reason.

 

 

 

I am, for the sake of argument, an atheist. The most important thing you need to keep in mind, however, is that I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no God, based on afformentioned evidence and nonevidence.

 

Now, I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone is a true agnostic. You simply cannot (or at least, I would hope) ignore the facts that evolution suggests that a creator god is not necessary, or that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies (I couldn't think of any actual evidence to back up theism, sorry guys).

 

I will concede, due to the definitions (which are making me increasingly frustrated), that nobody knows for certain whether or not there is a god. However, that's where "beyond any reasonable doubt" comes back in. You can certainly say that the existence of unicorns is currently unknowable, but to call yourself an agnostic in the matter of unicorns is a little silly. To me, saying that no knowledge currently posessed will help answer the big ol' question is ludicrous. We may not know for certain, but we can certainly draw a strong conclusion one way, or another.

 

 

 

It was only at this point that I remembered the terms "strong atheism" and "weak atheism", which are perhaps the more accepted terms for what I'm trying to describe.

 

...It was also at this point that I noticed we're now arguing over semantics and not actually achieving anything. This is no fun, let's get back to logic.

[Saru Inc]

Explain people who survive from diseases with less then 10% survival rates?

 

 

 

god is real

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a Christian, and believe in miracles, but even I got to say that's an awful argument. Said people only have 10% or less? So they still can get better, it's just very unlikely.

[D Jay99]

Explain people who survive from diseases with less then 10% survival rates?

 

 

 

god is real

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a Christian, and believe in miracles, but even I got to say that's an awful argument. Said people only have 10% or less? So they still can get better, it's just very unlikely.

 

Imagine all the other believers who prayed to their gods too and died anyway.