89 replies to this topic

[Lister]

Hi! I just wanted to introduce myself to the forum. So here we go..

Too often these types of forums are filled with Atheists patting each other on the back for being logical and rational. Yet so often is the case that these same Atheists chose to ignore thing that do not match up with their beliefs regardless of their basis in a rational logical world. That is not rational or logical.

Prove me wrong

Creationism is correct. God created the world 6000 years ago. All of the proof that life existed before that was created in place by God to promote choice.

Why did God do it? Because they did. It is not our place to question the will of the Lord.

I bring this up because so many times I see rookie Atheists adopting a religions holier-than-thou attitude while at the same time religiously believing that God doesn't exist and that religion is purely a harm.

Remember that Religion is about Faith. Faith is about the belief in something without proof. If you believe that God does not exist scientifically prove that they don’t or change your beliefs. Otherwise you have faith that God doesn’t exist and therefore you are religious.

Also, prove me wrong. Creationism is Correct.

[shadowhawk]

Lister Hi! I just wanted to introduce myself to the forum. So here we go..

Too often these types of forums are filled with Atheists patting each other on the back for being logical and rational. Yet so often is the case that these same Atheists chose to ignore thing that do not match up with their beliefs regardless of their basis in a rational logical world. That is not rational or logical.

Prove me wrong

I agree, many of the Atheists here are neither rational or logical.

Lister Creationism is correct. God created the world 6000 years ago. All of the proof that life existed before that was created in place by God to promote choice.

Why did God do it? Because they did. It is not our place to question the will of the Lord.

Creationalism, as you describe it, is only one very small part of Theism. However I won’t argue with you yet.

Lister I bring this up because so many times I see rookie Atheists adopting a religions holier-than-thou attitude while at the same time religiously believing that God doesn't exist and that religion is purely a harm.

Remember that Religion is about Faith. Faith is about the belief in something without proof. If you believe that God does not exist scientifically prove that they don’t or change your beliefs. Otherwise you have faith that God doesn’t exist and therefore you are religious.

I would disagree that religion is about belief in something without proof. What do you accept as proof, is the question. If one has a kind of proof view that demands total and absolute proof of anything believed, than no one has that kind of proof, including those claiming to be rational and logical. Atheists will not be able to give you evidence that atheism is true and correct. The only thing they can do is change the subject and attack Theism.

Lister Also, prove me wrong. Creationism is Correct.

I, like you, am a creationalist, but I have a different view of the details.

[Lister]

Lister I bring this up because so many times I see rookie Atheists adopting a religions holier-than-thou attitude while at the same time religiously believing that God doesn't exist and that religion is purely a harm.

Remember that Religion is about Faith. Faith is about the belief in something without proof. If you believe that God does not exist scientifically prove that they don’t or change your beliefs. Otherwise you have faith that God doesn’t exist and therefore you are religious.

I would disagree that religion is about belief in something without proof. What do you accept as proof, is the question. If one has a kind of proof view that demands total and absolute proof of anything believed, than no one has that kind of proof, including those claiming to be rational and logical. Atheists will not be able to give you evidence that atheism is true and correct. The only thing they can do is change the subject and attack Theism.

Lister Also, prove me wrong. Creationism is Correct.

I, like you, am a creationalist, but I have a different view of the details.

Ultimately when you’re talking about religion there is going to be a point where you can’t prove something. How you deal with that point is how one defines their position.

If you look at a complete lack of evidence and say to yourself “God did it” or some other religious value then that could be defined as a religious belief. If you look at it and simply say to yourself “I don’t know” you could look at that as a logical, rational or scientific fact.

Faith is many things but when the conversation between religious and non-religious views are compared that lack of proof point is really where the conversation is found. So YES, you are right faith is more than just the belief in something without proof. However when a discussion is brought up about religion more than often the proof part makes for the critical definition.

Also many Atheists base their whole belief system that God doesn’t exist or that religion is always a harm around proof, fact, things that they see as true. That being said they also often come to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist without that same rigours proof. Because of this by their own definition they are religious.

So back on topic: what is the bigger picture of creationism that I’ve missed? To be honest I’m not well versed in creationism however I’m still pretty sure I can defend it as true.

[sthira]

The honest position is agnosticism. The existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown, while human knowledge remains incomplete. God may exist; God may not exist. No one knows. All the silly politics, business, posturing, fantasy, wishing for or against it means little.

[shadowhawk]

Lister Ultimately when you’re talking about religion there is going to be a point where you can’t prove something. How you deal with that point is how one defines their position.

Yes, but religion is no different than anything else. There is no absolute proof of anything.

Lister If you look at a complete lack of evidence and say to yourself “God did it” or some other religious value then that could be defined as a religious belief. If you look at it and simply say to yourself “I don’t know” you could look at that as a logical, rational or scientific fact.

Complete lack of evidence and religion are not synonyms. Name me something you can look at which has no evidence for its existence. Science does not work this way either. Where is the proof that science is the only way to establish the proof of anything?

Lister Faith is many things but when the conversation between religious and non-religious views are compared that lack of proof point is really where the conversation is found. So YES, you are right faith is more than just the belief in something without proof. However when a discussion is brought up about religion more than often the proof part makes for the critical definition.

I disagree. Both the religious and non religious have a burden of proof in the same way.

Lister Also many Atheists base their whole belief system that God doesn’t exist or that religion is always a harm around proof, fact, things that they see as true. That being said they also often come to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist without that same rigours proof. Because of this by their own definition they are religious.

The Atheists have the same burden of proof the theists have. There lack of proof does not make them religious. Lack of proof does not make one religious.

Lister So back on topic: what is the bigger picture of creationism that I’ve missed? To be honest I’m not well versed in creationism however I’m still pretty sure I can defend it as true.

The issue between us is not if God created the cosmos and everything in it but how. Big subject. I am a Christian.

[shadowhawk]

Sthira: The honest position is agnosticism. The existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown, while human knowledge remains incomplete. God may exist; God may not exist. No one knows. All the silly politics, business, posturing, fantasy, wishing for or against it means little.

How is it honest to be agnostic? Where is your proof that no one can be a honest theist or atheist by believing in something. Do you believe what you are telling is, without the possibility of doubt, the truth? And...how do you know the nature of things are unknown just because our knowledge is uncomplete? As with anything we only know in part. Does that mean what we know makes knowledge impossible? How do you know that? Maybe you are not agnostic!

[Lister]

I can see what Sthira is saying. Agnostic in the majority opinion is someone who’s in the middle waving a flag of “I don’t know” standing on a mountain of “Sure, whatever!” It’s one of the few positions that doesn’t try and take any sides. That’s what he means by honest.

Also Shadow what about Degree? Funny I just used that on another thread… heh heh…

Sure you could say that SOME religious people are willing to debate things until they reach intelligent design however going beyond that things fall apart a bit.

Shadow can you look at anything in life in terms of how it was made, where it came from… etc. and say “I don’t know” and completely believe that you don’t know? Or do you constantly find yourself getting to the end of what you know and then finding an excuse to link that unknown to God?

Degree: Religious people usually never end something without an answer. If they can’t explain it they refer back to faith. “Well I just have faith in God that they created it that way.” Whereas non-religious people could just say “I just don’t know” ending at a void, empty, answerless position.

The Burden of Proof supplemented by God. Unless you’re God how do you know everything?

That’s compared to the Burden of Proof with nothingness being the final position of an answerless question. Faith is what keeps you out of that nothingness. When a supposed Atheist says that God does not exist without reasonable evidence they are taking it on Faith. They don’t want to believe that God could exist because that means they could be wrong. They are staying away from that Void space of “I don’t know” because it’s an uncomfortable place to be.

[sthira]

They (believers, athiests) are staying away from that Void space of “I don’t know” because it’s an uncomfortable place to be.

Right.

We "know" what we think we know by mostly direct sensory experience in order to help us navigate the crazy world. Some of that knowing may be false, some of it may be true, some may be fantasy, some is entirely unconscious. All is flux; I like Heraclitus and the pre-Socratics. They seemed genuinely curious. Now it's a game, or a business, or power tripping, or my-god's-better-than urs nonsense. This endless digging for Plato's absolutes is mostly empty word smithing, like Wittgenstein described nicely. Or Socrates calling out the sophists.

Admit that you don't know if God exists and admit that you don't know if God doesn't exist. That's what I mean by honestly, openness, sincerity.

[Lister]

They (believers, athiests) are staying away from that Void space of "I don't know" because it's an uncomfortable place to be.

Right.

We "know" what we think we know by mostly direct sensory experience in order to help us navigate the crazy world. Some of that knowing may be false, some of it may be true, some may be fantasy, some is entirely unconscious. All is flux; I like Heraclitus and the pre-Socratics. They seemed genuinely curious. Now it's a game, or a business, or power tripping, or my-god's-better-than urs nonsense. This endless digging for Plato's absolutes is mostly empty word smithing, like Wittgenstein described nicely. Or Socrates calling out the sophists.

Admit that you don't know if God exists and admit that you don't know if God doesn't exist. That's what I mean by honestly, openness, sincerity.

I can see what you're saying but remember that society has expended indefinitely and continues to day to day. With that in mind extremes will have the room to grow more extreme... however that doesn't mean the middle won't grow either. Extremes serve a purpose; they show us the outer limits of current thought.

If you only view the extremes and build your whole world view off of those extremes you'll likely miss the majority opinion. This would make you an extremist yourself.

Atheism has a lot of extremism. Remember that Atheism at its core is just living life without religion. Even Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher will eventually admit that they allow for the existence of God and the possibility that religion could be a net positive to society (Reluctantly of course).

[sthira]

Well, you're tossing around many words. But you don't know if God exists and you don't know if God doesn't. Dawkins (I don't know the other name you mentioned) does indeed both allow for the possibility of existence and non-existence of "God." Dawkins doesn't know, either, nor do I nor do you nor does any gentle or harsh reader here. And until God steps up and announces his his-ness plainly and openly to us all, no one knows. We're all agnostics -- some are just more arrogant than others and think they know things they do not know at all.

[Lister]

Arrogance is sadly something all of us have a problem with from time to time. Allowing our arrogance to blind us is bad, and common. Allowing others arrogance to blind us though is I feel far more common. How is this possible? I’ll try and explain…

If someone tells you that you’re wrong and they’re right and you feel that they’re being arrogant that sucks. Where it blinds you is when you become offended by it. Never conquer arrogance with more arrogance, insults and such (something your mother’s told you many times I’m sure). If you are offended that’s your fault and that’s your weakness.

Ultimately points are easily debated when detached from their creator. And my point here is that Atheism seems to be of late rampant with arrogance. I feel this lessens the cause to the point of insulting those who take up the banner of an Atheist (and yes sadly I do feel a little insulted by this).

Something I enjoy a bit too much, sadly is cracking arrogant people with sound logic. This also helps me to strengthen my own logic. Unfortunately this sometimes exposes my arrogance. I am no perfect being.

[sthira]

You don't know if God exists and you don't know if God does not exist. You're an agnostic and you don't know it. So you're having a dark night of the soul, yet remain ignorant. And that's really sad.

[Lister]

You don't know if God exists and you don't know if God does not exist. You're an agnostic and you don't know it. So you're having a dark night of the soul, yet remain ignorant. And that's really sad.

Huh? You lost me. Not knowing something completely and saying that you don't know and leaving it at that is something you would have to be strong to do. Living ignorant of your own ignorance is easy. Knowing you're ignorant of something and being honestly helpless to that ignorance as any sound person would know they are is difficult.

But that's not me. As long as I know that there is a hole in my knowledge I will keep trying to build a sound rational fill for that gap. That's what it means to build a strong base to your knowledge. And that is not dark nor is it "really sad."

Can you say that you're ok with not knowing something? To live without a truth when one cannot be logically found?

[arska]

Many seems to think that atheism is an antagonist philosophical current against theism. I prefer to see it as a way of life without need of super magical beings. You can live your life happy and full of love without intelligent design, gods, unicorns, hell, heaven, vampires or witches. The truth is relative always to your subjective reasoning.

[mikeinnaples]

Prove me wrong

Creationism is correct. God created the world 6000 years ago. All of the proof that life existed before that was created in place by God to promote choice.

Why did God do it? Because they did. It is not our place to question the will of the Lord.

I bring this up because so many times I see rookie Atheists adopting a religions holier-than-thou attitude while at the same time religiously believing that God doesn't exist and that religion is purely a harm.

Remember that Religion is about Faith. Faith is about the belief in something without proof. If you believe that God does not exist scientifically prove that they don’t or change your beliefs. Otherwise you have faith that God doesn’t exist and therefore you are religious.

Also, prove me wrong. Creationism is Correct.

Pretty arrogant to assume that you are right when you have done nothing to disprove the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and *cough* Scientologists out there. Personally, I am a pastafarian. Why waste time disproving your beliefs when you have not made the effort to disprove mine or anyone else's ?

[shadowhawk]

Lister: I can see what Sthira is saying. Agnostic in the majority opinion is someone who’s in the middle waving a flag of “I don’t know” standing on a mountain of “Sure, whatever!” It’s one of the few positions that doesn’t try and take any sides. That’s what he means by honest.

Agnostic is not the majority opinion. I don’t think they have a flag. It has a side, you can’t know. Why is that the only honest position?. You didn’t answer this last time.

Lister: Also Shadow what about Degree? Funny I just used that on another thread… heh heh…

What about degree?

Lister: Sure you could say that SOME religious people are willing to debate things until they reach intelligent design however going beyond that things fall apart a bit.

what are you talking about?

Lister:: Shadow can you look at anything in life in terms of how it was made, where it came from… etc. and say “I don’t know” and completely believe that you don’t know? Or do you constantly find yourself getting to the end of what you know and then finding an excuse to link that unknown to God?

No I can’t look at anything in terms of how it was made. I know everything! Haha! What a joke. Where do you get such ideas? Neither you, nor I, or anyone knows anything exhaustively. That does not mean we don’t know anything. I do not believe in the God of the Gaps, which I think is what you are trying to talk about..

Lister: Degree: Religious people usually never end something without an answer. If they can’t explain it they refer back to faith. “Well I just have faith in God that they created it that way.” Whereas non-religious people could just say “I just don’t know” ending at a void, empty, answerless position.

If you don’t know anything, what are you talking about? Do you believe you can know anything?

Lister: The Burden of Proof supplemented by God. Unless you’re God how do you know everything?

I don’t, never said I did. You seem to be discussing with a straw man, you created.

Lister: That’s compared to the Burden of Proof with nothingness being the final position of an answerless question. Faith is what keeps you out of that nothingness. When a supposed Atheist says that God does not exist without reasonable evidence they are taking it on Faith. They don’t want to believe that God could exist because that means they could be wrong. They are staying away from that Void space of “I don’t know” because it’s an uncomfortable place to be.

Do you know everything is an, “answer less question.” How do you know that? Hmmm

I do agree with you Atheists have a burden of proof but so do Agnostics who claim you can’t know anything except you can’t know anything..

[DukeNukem]

The honest position is agnosticism. The existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown, while human knowledge remains incomplete. God may exist; God may not exist. No one knows. All the silly politics, business, posturing, fantasy, wishing for or against it means little.

Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. Theism is belief. What exactly is agnosticism, since atheism and theism exhaust all possibilities? Agnosticism is a weird cop-out belief invention that doesn't actually make any sense.

Also, believers thrive on areas that we don't know answers to yet, ascribing these unknowns to a god. For example, we once didn't know how the sun arced across the sky, so of course religions claimed that a god pulled it along with a chariot. (This is what ShadowHawk would be telling us 2000 years ago in the Greek version of Longecity.)

Believers took a mighty blow when we learned about evolution and the mechanism for its action (natural selection). Before evolution, they could much more easily claim that a god was required to create all the life we see on Earth. Weirdly, there are still brainwashed people who refuse to accept evolution.

The birth of the universe (Big Bang) was another blow.

But in both cases, silly believers hang on by their formerly primate claws (now called finger nails) and claim godly origin of the universe, and life itself. What will they cling onto when these areas fall to science, too?

[Lister]

Shadow are you sure you’re religious? You sound an awful lot like an Atheist to me.

Also “Agnostic in the majority opinion is someone who’s in the middle” as in the majority opinion of Agnostics not it being the majority orientation… But I’m sure you caught that after you made your post…. Right?

Also mikeinnaples, you just summarized this thread. I’m guessing you did that to try and bring everything together and not because you just read 3 lines and then hit reply? Cause that’d be a silly mistake wouldn’t it?

So at this point it appears that everyone responding to this thread either agrees that creationism is true or is trying to avoid talking about it for fear of being wrong. What do you guys want me to try and defend scientology instead?

[shadowhawk]

Lister: Shadow are you sure you’re religious? You sound an awful lot like an Atheist to me.

An Atheist is one who believes there is no god. Lately Atheists have tried to redefine Atheism as if it means simply the lack of belief in God which is nonsense. Such a definition would make my cat an atheist. This cute trick is the Atheists attempt to keep from having a burden of proof for Atheism. See below for discussion of this topic.

http://www.longecity...894#entry501894

I am a Christian. What have I said that makes you think I am not a theist?

Also “Agnostic in the majority opinion is someone who’s in the middle” as in the majority opinion of Agnostics not it being the majority orientation… But I’m sure you caught that after you made your post…. Right?

It depends on how large the middle is. Theism is by far the largest majority. Wrong.

Also mikeinnaples, you just summarized this thread. I’m guessing you did that to try and bring everything together and not because you just read 3 lines and then hit reply? Cause that’d be a silly mistake wouldn’t it?

It depends on what is being said. No use arguing against logical fallacies or name calling. Also some posts are addressed to certain posters.

So at this point it appears that everyone responding to this thread either agrees that creationism is true or is trying to avoid talking about it for fear of being wrong. What do you guys want me to try and defend scientology instead?

I would be happy to discuss creationism. I may agree with you, creation makes sense to me.

[kevinseven11]

Guys hes obvi trolling. Lister has a picture of flying monster (mocking god). Prove me wrong is the dumbest argument ive heard.

[sthira]

What exactly is agnosticism, since atheism and theism exhaust all possibilities? Agnosticism is a weird cop-out belief invention that doesn't actually make any sense.

Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3.

"In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas an atheist and a theist believe and disbelieve, respectfully. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that deities do or do not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational."

[Lister]

What exactly is agnosticism, since atheism and theism exhaust all possibilities? Agnosticism is a weird cop-out belief invention that doesn't actually make any sense.

Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3.

"In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas an atheist and a theist believe and disbelieve, respectfully. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that deities do or do not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational."

It’s a shame that many Atheists lack the logic to be considered any more rational than Scientologists.

I mock the seriousness of theism true enough. I don’t think that the existence of a God like entity is anymore irrational than the non-existence of one. We have no solid proof either way… not even any distant proof either way. But believing in Hell or Heaven or prayer... or locking up progress due to your interpretation of a religion is just silly. Perhaps there's some good there, but where there's good there is often bad.

Personally I think that it’s childish to assume a truth. I assume no truths; only higher and lower probabilities. Plus I’m not foolish enough to take something as a truth without logical debate and even then I may only be more interested, or less interested in it being likely.

The weakest of our society are the children that “park” their views in one spot and refuse to move; atheists and religions alike. If you take others perspectives long enough you start to realize that the center is generally the most accurate position to be in.

And Shadow, Why does a religious man care about the burden of proof? Sounds like you may be a kitty playing with some mice...

[mikeinnaples]

Also mikeinnaples, you just summarized this thread. I’m guessing you did that to try and bring everything together and not because you just read 3 lines and then hit reply? Cause that’d be a silly mistake wouldn’t it?

It depends on what is being said. No use arguing against logical fallacies or name calling. Also some posts are addressed to certain posters.

I have to quote this. You are basically telling everyone that there is no point in arguing with you or even responding to you.

Classic.

[mikeinnaples]

It’s a shame that many Atheists lack the logic to be considered any more rational than Scientologists.

Its a shame that many people lack reason and the ability to think for themselves. It is independent of atheism or scientology for that matter.

I mock the seriousness of theism true enough. I don’t think that the existence of a God like entity is anymore irrational than the non-existence of one. We have no solid proof either way… not even any distant proof either way. But believing in Hell or Heaven or prayer... or locking up progress due to your interpretation of a religion is just silly. Perhaps there's some good there, but where there's good there is often bad.

This is very similar to my viewpoint and the viewpoint of most atheists I know. I agree with you that there is no solid proof either way. Of course it is impossible for atheists to prove that gods do not exist, it is impossible to disprove the the existence of *anything* unless you have the power to to simultaneously view the entire universe (or multiverse depending on what theory you believe). It is also impossible for a theist to prove the existence of their deity unless that deity is so inclined to provide the proof. For a theist, it can only ever be a personal truth (and hopefully not just schizophrenia, heh). Keeping in mind what I just said, I still find it completely irrational to believe in the existence of something without proof. There is a portion of the theists out there that firmly believe that they have felt, touched, or communed with their deity ....I can understand their belief and find it rational barring mental illness, even if I don't believe them myself. Do I make what I am saying clear enough or should I expand upon it ? I might have explained that horribly, heh.

Personally I think that it’s childish to assume a truth. I assume no truths; only higher and lower probabilities. Plus I’m not foolish enough to take something as a truth without logical debate and even then I may only be more interested, or less interested in it being likely.

The problem is when the logic debate turns irrational or when someone refuses to debate with you. Even worse when someone regurgitates the thoughts of someone else and refuses to share their own. (yes I am referring to people like you Shadowhawk)

Still though, even logical debate isn't enough to take something as a truth unless the logic is irrefutable. Debating theism against atheism is completely futile because it is impossible to refute anything.

The weakest of our society are the children that “park” their views in one spot and refuse to move; atheists and religions alike. If you take others perspectives long enough you start to realize that the center is generally the most accurate position to be in.

This is most certainly true in politics, especially in places like the United States. I am not sure I can buy off on it completely in regards to religion because it isn't even a two sided issue. There are multiple sides and multiple centers between the sides and multiple centers within the sides. Not completely accurate, but for an ideal of what I am saying, picture a gargantuan Venn Diagram. Hell, even the 'atheist' sides is circles within circles, some overlapping religion and some not.

And Shadow, Why does a religious man care about the burden of proof? Sounds like you may be a kitty playing with some mice...

Kitty playing with mice isn't quite accurate when the cat is transparent and lacking substance like a ghost.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 17 July 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[Lister]

I can see what you’re saying about the center mike. For example if you have an extremist group of terrorists, within that group there is going to be those who don’t want to suicide bomb, those who really do, and those who want to some of the time (center). They're all still extremists.

That being said I was more or less talking about the majority center. If you look at Liberalism in politics and Conservatism you find two opposing views. Now if you look at both sides objectively you can see that they’re both wrong and right. Taking the accurate views of both sides as a centrist would attempt to do seems to me to be the most accurate view.

As far as religion goes religious extremism never seems to make sense or bring any sort of benefit. Moderate religion though is a mix of social good and bad. So if you stand in the middle away from religion but allow for the positive aspects (the community aspect for example) then you seem to be in a more honest, accurate position.

[shadowhawk]

Guys hes obvi trolling. Lister has a picture of flying monster (mocking god). Prove me wrong is the dumbest argument ive heard.

I noticed that right off the start. Maybe???

[shadowhawk]

What exactly is agnosticism, since atheism and theism exhaust all possibilities? Agnosticism is a weird cop-out belief invention that doesn't actually make any sense.

Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3.

"In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas an atheist and a theist believe and disbelieve, respectfully. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that deities do or do not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational."

Right

[shadowhawk]

Also mikeinnaples, you just summarized this thread. I’m guessing you did that to try and bring everything together and not because you just read 3 lines and then hit reply? Cause that’d be a silly mistake wouldn’t it?

It depends on what is being said. No use arguing against logical fallacies or name calling. Also some posts are addressed to certain posters.

I have to quote this. You are basically telling everyone that there is no point in arguing with you or even responding to you.

Classic.

Straw man. Didn't say that at all. Can you read?

[shadowhawk]

kevinseven11 Is looking more right all the time.

Lister: "And Shadow, Why does a religious man care about the burden of proof? Sounds like you may be a kitty playing with some mice."

You obviously are kidding. CU

Edited by shadowhawk, 17 July 2012 - 08:01 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

Also mikeinnaples, you just summarized this thread. I’m guessing you did that to try and bring everything together and not because you just read 3 lines and then hit reply? Cause that’d be a silly mistake wouldn’t it?

It depends on what is being said. No use arguing against logical fallacies or name calling. Also some posts are addressed to certain posters.

I have to quote this. You are basically telling everyone that there is no point in arguing with you or even responding to you.

Classic.

Straw man. Didn't say that at all. Can you read?

I read just fine. Cry much?

You use logical fallacies and you name call consistently. You state that there is no point in arguing with people that do so.

Would you argue with yourself?