Agnostics are the only ones who aren't fools

[Norsefire]

It's true
And then the most foolish are atheist, and then theists



Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know. Theists act as if they know but some acknowledge that it is still belief.

 

[John99]

It's true
And then the most foolish are atheist, and then theists

That sounds about right. The only difference between Atheists and theists are that the theists are generally better organised.

 

[Enmos]

It's true
And then the most foolish are atheist, and then theists



Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know. Theists act as if they know but some acknowledge that it is still belief.

But you know.. don't you ?

 

[Norsefire]

But you know.. don't you ?

No......

What do you mean?

 

[spidergoat]

Agnostics are atheists without balls.

 

[Norsefire]

Agnostics are atheists without balls.

No, they are entirely different. Atheists, without a shred of evidence or logic, make claims and pass them as fact. The same can go with theists, but alot of theists do acknowledge that their beliefs are beliefs, not fact.


Agnostics acknowledge the truth........nobody knows!

 

[John99]

Atheists are annoying and I sense a lot of inner turmoil coming from them, a struggle within. Even when you come across an intelligent one you just see that they are convincing themselves of something they have no possible way of knowing.

It is amusing though, as long as no one is getting hurt or killed then what harm is there?

 

[iceaura]

Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know.

I claim to be atheist, based on considered judgment.

That is, I know in the same way I know similar and factual things - overwhelming preponderance of evidence and argument, likelihood by my best judgment.

The way I know the mushrooms I'm about to eat are Morels, and will not kill me.

Not for sure, not proven, but "agnostic" is not the right word for enough confidence to bet one's life.

 

[spidergoat]

No, they are entirely different. Atheists, without a shred of evidence or logic, make claims and pass them as fact. The same can go with theists, but alot of theists do acknowledge that their beliefs are beliefs, not fact.


Agnostics acknowledge the truth........nobody knows!

You are mistaken about the evidence and the logic. Atheism is based on both. Theists that say their faith isn't fact have no faith.

 

[John99]

I have never heard a compelling enough argument to acknowledge that Atheism even exists.

For all intents and purposes Atheists are Agnostics who for one reason or another are anti religion.

And what is God? Who is God? If i had the knowledge and ability to create life, cultivate it, give organisms the opportunity to develop and if i can create NEW life forms...Well then I AM GOD. Especially to them.

 

[Norsefire]

OK, so if you base it on facts........prove to me that no God exists.

You can't!

Sure, you can disprove most religion, because most religion is a product of imagination. But you can NEVER prove that there isn't some sort of intelligent entity. It's a scientific theory, Intelligent Design.



And since I can prove neither, I'd be wise to say that I am agnostic.

 

[Norsefire]

I have never heard a compelling enough argument to acknowledge that Atheism even exists.

For all intents and purposes Atheists are Agnostics who for one reason or another are anti religion.

And what is God? Who is God? If i had the knowledge and ability to create life, cultivate it give organisms the oppertunity to develop and if i can create NEW life forms...Well then I AM GOD. Especially to them.

Exactly. Atheists, however, get the notion that ANY mention of a Creator automatically has to be your typical angels and devils and heaven ordeal.

 

[spidergoat]

OK, so if you base it on facts........prove to me that no God exists.

You can't!

Sure, you can disprove most religion, because most religion is a product of imagination. But you can NEVER prove that there isn't some sort of intelligent entity. It's a scientific theory, Intelligent Design.



And since I can prove neither, I'd be wise to say that I am agnostic.

That doesn't mean there isn't evidence to support the view, and logic. Science doesn't always work on proof, it works on probability. There is no proof about what causes gravity either. Only certain areas of math and geometry can show certain proof of relationships.

So, I can show evidence that life arose by the natural process of evolution with no intelligence required. I can show evidence of experiments that show prayer doesn't work. God's attributes cannot exist as they are logically contradictory. Religion doesn't prevent evil, religious people commit as many crimes as the non-religious... more even. You can always concieve of a God that could exist, but it would have no interaction with the physical world, and is thus unworthy of worship. The universe is consistent with natural laws. Nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. Finally, there is no evidence for a God, as there should be if there actually were one.

The same criteria for demonstrating a phenomenon applies to God. Not proof, which is rare in science, but evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If your criteria is to challenge me to disprove something, there are an infinite number of things that I cannot also disprove (Russel's Teapot), but which would be unreasonable to have complete faith in.

 

[Norsefire]

Yet by stating that the universe is fine-tuned for life, you can get enough "evidence" or reasoning to show a good probability of intelligent design.

 

[spidergoat]

It isn't. Scientists have found that many variables would still create a universe very similar to this one if they were varied by 20% or more. There would still be stars and such. Life might still exist, but it could be different than that we find now. There is no evidence that our kind of life is the only kind possible.

In fact, most of the universe isn't somewhere we could live. Most of the universe is empty space.

 

[John99]

So, I can show evidence that life arose by the natural process of evolution with no intelligence required.

But you cannot do this, no one can. And that is where the delusion comes in. Pure fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is the belief in absolute authority and the demand that this authority be legally enforced. Often, fundamentalism involves the willingness to do battle for one's faith

 

[Norsefire]

It isn't. Scientists have found that many variables would still create a universe very similar to this one if they were varied by 20% or more. There would still be stars and such. Life might still exist, but it could be different than that we find now. There is no evidence that our kind of life is the only kind possible.

But regardless, there still needs to be an answer for the beginning of the universe. For the development of it's natural forces. For the creation of mass and energy (which is impossible), for the regulation and insurance that gravity works as it does and cannot work in another way. There is very good reason to believe in something like Intelligent Design.

 

[spidergoat]

Evolution proves that complex life can develop with no intelligent guidance at all. Simple computer simulations also prove that simple rules can lead to complex and unpredictable behavior.

 

[Norsefire]

Evolution proves that complex life can develop with no intelligent guidance at all. Simple computer simulations also prove that simple rules can lead to complex and unpredictable behavior.

But computers needed to be created, allowed, to exist and put into existence by intelligent beings (us).

The question can boil down, not to the development of life, but the creation of existence, of which ONLY the logic of a creator makes sense and even then it doesn't. It's an endless loop, which ultimately suggests that existence is infinite and THAT is just not plausible.

 

[spidergoat]

But regardless, there still needs to be an answer for the beginning of the universe. For the development of it's natural forces. For the creation of mass and energy (which is impossible), for the regulation and insurance that gravity works as it does and cannot work in another way. There is very good reason to believe in something like Intelligent Design.

There is room to speculate, but there has yet been no credible fact that shows the universe could not have come about through a natural process. In other words, you are using the God of the gaps argument. You are saying since we don't know everything, that Gap is where God's role comes in.