Now, once again you will try to redefine what an atheist is and what an agnostic is to suit your own bizarre philosophy. Once again I must direct you to the dictionary and the encyclopedia and assure you that nobdy is going to accept your redefinitions. Absolutely. So religious people that insist upon God are only guessing. Likewise atheists who deny God are only guessing. Only the agnostic is being realistic in saying that If God exists we have no way of knowing it or what he expects of us, if anything. No. Here is where you are attempting to blur the definitions of atheism and agnosticism. Athesism mean without theism . . . God does not exist. Agnostic means without knowledge . . . we have no way of knowing anything about God. That's the bottom line, It is the definition that all people accept and you are absolutely and utterly wrong to suggest otherwise. Nonsense. Atheists deny God flatly. Agnostics merely deny knowledge of God. You may be God with a car-size diamond in you back yard, but I have no knowledge of this. It makes me skeptical. It is only atheists like you who insists that nobody can possibly be God or have a big diamond without being insane. Bullshit. You can either insist that you know the answers or you can insist that you do not know the answers. It is the former that is the fucking idiot. Indeed.
Well, religion does not provide certainty, it merely provides comfort in uncertainty. I would say that sciences tells us both the HOW and WHY of things. Religions attempt to explain whether a thing is RIGHT or WRONG.
I would be skeptical, but just like Yahweh, I don't know if you are God or not. No one can. Only athesists choose to disbelieve without proof.
Then admit that you are an agnostic and quit calling yourself an atheist. You are wrong. To disbelieve without evidence is no smarter than to believe without evidence. The honest observer admits that he does not know in the absence of evidence. I have told you many times . . . Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
do you understand the difference between a state of my mind and a actual state of the world? i cannot tell you that god does or doesnt exist for sure. i can tell you for sure that my personal belief based on analysis of the evidence is that he does not exist. the same way, ,for example, you believe that tulane will not win the national championship next year. you cant know for sure, its not possible but you believe they wont. again ntwo seperaate things, the reality, which is undetermined, and your mind, which is determined, based on evidence. try to understand the differnece. two separate questions, one determined, one undetedmined: 1. will tulane win the national championship next year. literally impossible to know. thts the answer. 2. does red believe tulane will win the national championshi. not impossible to know, red doesnt believe it. it takes very little "faith" for red to have this belief. can you now understand why you can have a belief about something that is by its nature uncertain?
i think when you admit this, it points out the uselessness of the term "agnostic". but i appreciate you answering the question honestly in a way that allows to me to make my point. also you would and should mock anyone who believed i am god, thats what i want you to work on admitting next. (even though we cant prove i am not)
In other words, you have faith that God does not exist in the lack of evidence, rather than admit that you cannot possibly know. Wrong. Red believes that it is impossible to know this. I would be skeptical, of course. But you are trying to equate skepticism with denial. This is absurd, obviously. Amen, brother martin. I can now ridicule you as one of the faithful.
they certainly attempt to do alot of things. the actual way to determine right or wrong doesnt involve magic books, it involves normative ethics and rational sociology and philosophy. the sooner we admit that, the better.
