"Agnostic"

[soylentgreen]

The word has a meaning. You're entitled to your opinions but the word has a meaning. It's not sophistry. It's not intellectual dishonesty. The word has a meaning. You can look up the meaning.

How amusing the op of this thread calls agnosticism " intellectual laziness " and your response as an agnostic is "You can look up the meaning."
Thank you for confirming the definition of agnosticism.

 

[Fearandloathing]

My feeling is that the term "agnostic" essentially has no meaning and, stripped of its semantic sophistry, is intellectually dishonest as it simply states, "I don't know." Well, if we're looking for dispositive proof of the existence or lack of existence of god(s), then there is none to be found, however, we don't live in a universe where patently absurd propositions are accorded possible viability until they are disproven (viz. Are there teams of invisible unicorns pulling chariots around the moons of Jupiter; perhaps Santa Claus travels from Alpha Centuri to earth a few times a year, etc.). No, we routinely dismiss such absurdities because they lack the slightest shred of evidence and are, thus, understandably regarded as absurd.
Regarding belief in god(s) using the term agnostic (i.e. "I'm not sure") places the pope and I in the same category. Neither of us can be sure but my position simply posits that it seems utterly fanciful and absurd in the absence of even the slightest evidence to think that there is any such thing(s). And for those who might challenge that by suggesting that I have no proof of the non-existance of any god, I would suggest that they brush up on simple logic which would inform them that it's impossible (and dishonest) to ask anyone to disprove a null hypothesis. Nope, the entire burden of proof here lies with those who believe to show that there is some basis for their belief. Absent that, the default position has to be that absurd claims lacking in the slightest shred of evidence are, definitionally false until proven otherwise.
The only real question then is whether you 'believe' there is a god(s), in which case you are a theist or believer or whether you don't, in which case you're an atheist. The term 'agnostic' is just some weird combination of intellectual laziness and cowardice.

Modern agnosticism is a cop out.

They don't want to say "atheist" so they choose the next best alternative.

"Agnostic" is Greek and comes from the ancient Greek debating society, usurped by Christians later on. At one time there was a Christian sect claimed to be "agnostic" and while I have no idea how that worked out, the modern usage is changeable depending on background, geography etc. At one time, around the 1960's "agnostic" meant you believed in God but not necessarily Christ or other organized religions.

As an aside, you post well I enjoy reading it. You could make easier to read (I'm nearing 80) if you broke it down into paragraphs.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I read a quote online from (of all people) a roadie for AC/DC who said God is the name of a blanket we wrap around the Mystery to give it a shape we can identIfy and relate to. To me that neatly encapaulates the limitations organized religions have in grasping "it." You can just as easily call the blanket Allah, Ganesha, Tara, Odin, or any other name humanity has given the divine.

I call myself agnostic because it is the best (however imperfect) descriptor there is that defines my position. I don't believe in divinity...but I choose to have faith in it. If that sounds nonsensical to you, I agree.

 

[watsup]

An intelligent person's confidence in the truth value of any given proposition can range from 0% to 100%.

The old joke: “How do you know a philosopher is in the room?”
Answer: “THEY TELL YOU!”
The idea is that, even though not asked, the “philosophers” want you to know who they are so that they can unload their philosophical claims at will to show just how intellectually better they are than everyone else.
You know, like using the term “truth value” instead of just “truth”. Okay, we know that you are here and that you are an intellectual philosopher. Are you happy now?

our attitudes goes from disproving through denying, imagining, speculating, hypothesizing, opining, believing, knowing and proving.

Humans have been “imagining, speculating, hypothesizing, opining, believing, knowing” regarding a God or gods for literally millenia now, and we are not one bit closer to developing any actuality-based evidence for such an entity. It’s just a big merry-go-round of agnostics, theists, philosophers, and religionists making the same arguments over and over. Here’s the watchmaker argument. Here’s the creator argument. Here’s the philosophical god argument. Etc etc etc. and then someone like Gozaburo or DrewPaul presents what they think is an original argument, but it is still their “One True God” just like every other human who has ever used their imagination to construct one.
Why on Earth wouldn’t atheist not get off of such a ride that goes round and round and then ends up in exactly the same place: “faith and belief”. That and $5 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

Seems to me that attempts to reduce that range of human cognition into such a simplistic, binary pair

obviously going to lead to severe intellectual stunting right off the bat...

Ah yes, and now the gaslighting: “simplistic, intellectual stunting”. So predictable. I don’t think that there has ever been an agnostic, theist, or religionist who has ever shown up in this forum that is not obsessed with gaslighting the atheist—passively aggressively trying to make them feel bad about their atheism. How many times have I said it now: the problem is not with those being gaslighted, but with those who decide to move beyond the topic and in to personal or generalized insult. Why are they so afraid to stay on topic?

Personally, I am particularly wary of such religion-inspired styles of thinking.

Personally, I am particularly wary of those who hide behind philosophical meandering instead of addressing the topic head-on.

 

[Mithrae]

Modern agnosticism is a cop out.

They don't want to say "atheist" so they choose the next best alternative.

We often see religious folk doing much the same thing as you are doing, insisting that other people just don't want to admit that they are really theists deep down, they're actually just "angry at God." There's a quasi-religious attitude which some atheists seem drawn to: Not just proselytizing, trying to persuade others to join their camp (every debater does that!), but trying to manoeuvre other people into their camp by definition such as agnostics in this case or babies in other cases. Whether it's religious folk insisting that no-one's really an atheist, or atheists insisting that no-one's really agnostic and we were all born atheists in any case, there's some psychological comfort to be gained from being part of a herd, from supposing that one's views are more or less universal or 'default.'

At one time there was a Christian sect claimed to be "agnostic" and while I have no idea how that worked out

The Christian sect was the gnostics.

 

[holbritter]

My feeling is that the term "agnostic" essentially has no meaning and, stripped of its semantic sophistry, is intellectually dishonest as it simply states, "I don't know." Well, if we're looking for dispositive proof of the existence or lack of existence of god(s), then there is none to be found, however, we don't live in a universe where patently absurd propositions are accorded possible viability until they are disproven (viz. Are there teams of invisible unicorns pulling chariots around the moons of Jupiter; perhaps Santa Claus travels from Alpha Centuri to earth a few times a year, etc.). No, we routinely dismiss such absurdities because they lack the slightest shred of evidence and are, thus, understandably regarded as absurd.
Regarding belief in god(s) using the term agnostic (i.e. "I'm not sure") places the pope and I in the same category. Neither of us can be sure but my position simply posits that it seems utterly fanciful and absurd in the absence of even the slightest evidence to think that there is any such thing(s). And for those who might challenge that by suggesting that I have no proof of the non-existance of any god, I would suggest that they brush up on simple logic which would inform them that it's impossible (and dishonest) to ask anyone to disprove a null hypothesis. Nope, the entire burden of proof here lies with those who believe to show that there is some basis for their belief. Absent that, the default position has to be that absurd claims lacking in the slightest shred of evidence are, definitionally false until proven otherwise.
The only real question then is whether you 'believe' there is a god(s), in which case you are a theist or believer or whether you don't, in which case you're an atheist. The term 'agnostic' is just some weird combination of intellectual laziness and cowardice.

Why do you care?

 

[Mithrae]

The old joke: “How do you know a philosopher is in the room?”
Answer: “THEY TELL YOU!”
The idea is that, even though not asked, the “philosophers” want you to know who they are so that they can unload their philosophical claims at will to show just how intellectually better they are than everyone else.
You know, like using the term “truth value” instead of just “truth”. Okay, we know that you are here and that you are an intellectual philosopher. Are you happy now?

No need to get personal.

Humans have been “imagining, speculating, hypothesizing, opining, believing, knowing” regarding a God or gods for literally millenia now, and we are not one bit closer to developing any actuality-based evidence for such an entity. It’s just a big merry-go-round of agnostics, theists, philosophers, and religionists making the same arguments over and over. Here’s the watchmaker argument. Here’s the creator argument. Here’s the philosophical god argument. Etc etc etc. and then someone like Gozaburo or DrewPaul presents what they think is an original argument, but it is still their “One True God” just like every other human who has ever used their imagination to construct one.

Fallacy of association and more than a little bit of ad hominem.

Ah yes, and now the gaslighting: “simplistic, intellectual stunting”. So predictable. I don’t think that there has ever been an agnostic, theist, or religionist who has ever shown up in this forum that is not obsessed with gaslighting the atheist—passively aggressively trying to make them feel bad about their atheism. How many times have I said it now: the problem is not with those being gaslighted, but with those who decide to move beyond the topic and in to personal or generalized insult. Why are they so afraid to stay on topic?

Taking the range of views from 0, 1, 2, 3.... to 99, 100 and trying to turn it into nothing more than a binary pair of a one (belief) or a zero (non-belief) is literally stunting that range of cognitive options. If you don't like that, the appropriate response isn't to get all huffy at the guy who pointed it out... it would be to stop thinking in binary terms of belief/nonbelief.

Conversely if you are still comfortable with that binary pair which the OP proffered, the appropriate response still isn't to get all huffy at the guy who pointed out that it's a much more limited set of options... it would be to calmly and rationally explain why that binary pair is better than expressing more nuanced degrees of confidence and doubt. I didn't insult you, I didn't insult anyone: I explained why I don't like that binary approach. Such a thin-skinned response to my explanation would make sense if you don't have a rational counter-point to make, I suppose, though I'd have fairly low confidence in that speculation

 

[watsup]

No need to get personal.


Fallacy of association and more than a little bit of ad hominem.


Taking the range of views from 0, 1, 2, 3.... to 99, 100 and trying to turn it into nothing more than a binary pair of a one (belief) or a zero (non-belief) is literally stunting that range of cognitive options. If you don't like that, the appropriate response isn't to get all huffy at the guy who pointed it out... it would be to stop thinking in binary terms of belief/nonbelief.

More projection and gaslighting. It’s always expected of the agnostics, theists, and religionists.

 

[watsup]

there's some psychological comfort to be gained from being part of a herd, from supposing that one's views are more or less universal or 'default.'

Says the person who is part of the philosophic agnostic herd.

 

[btthegreat]

The only way you can " not know squat " is to be willfully, purposely ignorant. You choose to remain ignorant and then call that a virtue.
Let me ask, do you know of even one good argument for the existence of a god? Can you point to one verifiable bit of physical evidence that point out a god must exist? If you cannot then that is somethig you do know.

Boy you make one big assumption. Its that I have been made aware of all the arguments for the existence of God, and that there is no other argument than may be more persuasive I have not been exposed to coming around the corner in a year or two or five. I learn new ideas, hear new arguments and people can give me something new to ponder on politics, religion or any other topic. One thing I do know, as time goes on is that my basis of knowledge always grows or changes.

" Can you point to one verifiable bit of physical evidence that point out a god must exist?

Wow you are planting your goal post rather high on the hill here.
1. No I do not need to point to any verifiable bit of evidence, and that evidence sure as hell does not need to show that a god must exist. A God may exist and I may not have seen any verifiable evidence yet and that is why it is safer for me to say I don't know whether a God exists or not.


You can leave your goalpost high on that hill, Its your goalpost, not mine and I want no part of it.

 

[Shrink726]

Why do you care?

Because once you relinquish reason, things tend to work out poorly.

 

[Shrink726]

Boy you make one big assumption. Its that I have been made aware of all the arguments for the existence of God, and that there is no other argument than may be more persuasive I have not been exposed to coming around the corner in a year or two or five. I learn new ideas, hear new arguments and people can give me something new to ponder on politics, religion or any other topic. One thing I do know, as time goes on is that my basis of knowledge always grows or changes.

" Can you point to one verifiable bit of physical evidence that point out a god must exist?

Wow you are planting your goal post rather high on the hill here.
1. No I do not need to point to any verifiable bit of evidence, and that evidence sure as hell does not need to show that a god must exist. A God may exist and I may not have seen any verifiable evidence yet and that is why it is safer for me to say I don't know whether a God exists or not.


You can leave your goalpost high on that hill, Its your goalpost, not mine and I want no part of it.

Gee, exactly how many thousands of years would you like to pass absent the slightest shred of evidence of any god or higher power before you think it might be reasonable to conclude it's all a flaming pile of bullshit?

 

[Mithrae]

Boy you make one big assumption. Its that I have been made aware of all the arguments for the existence of God, and that there is no other argument than may be more persuasive I have not been exposed to coming around the corner in a year or two or five. I learn new ideas, hear new arguments and people can give me something new to ponder on politics, religion or any other topic. One thing I do know, as time goes on is that my basis of knowledge always grows or changes.

" Can you point to one verifiable bit of physical evidence that point out a god must exist?

Wow you are planting your goal post rather high on the hill here.
1. No I do not need to point to any verifiable bit of evidence, and that evidence sure as hell does not need to show that a god must exist. A God may exist and I may not have seen any verifiable evidence yet and that is why it is safer for me to say I don't know whether a God exists or not.


You can leave your goalpost high on that hill, Its your goalpost, not mine and I want no part of it.

Some folk seem not to understand that evidence ≠ proof, and that for any given theistic view (eg. Yahweh) it's possible for there to be two bits of evidence favouring that view and also a hundred or a thousand bits of evidence against that view. On balance a rational person might come to a conclusion of near-certainty that Yahweh does not exist, and yet still recognize that there are some little bits of evidence for Yahweh.

Unfortunately belief/nonbelief is not the only binary thinking to be found in popular atheist rhetoric; there's also often the "evidence/no evidence" pairing, which creates a powerful bias for rejecting out of hand and refusing to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever.

Edit: Witness post #37 above this one.

 

[Argent]

This argument about the meaning of agnostic and nature of agnostics is a waste of time. Neither agnostic nor atheist in belief or practice does the harm that the belief in gods and the practice of religions do.

 

[Shrink726]

Some folk seem not to understand that evidence ≠ proof, and that for any given theistic view (eg. Yahweh) it's possible for there to be two bits of evidence favouring that view and also a hundred or a thousand bits of evidence against that view. On balance a rational person might come to a conclusion of near-certainty that Yahweh does not exist, and yet still recognize that there are some little bits of evidence for Yahweh.

Unfortunately belief/nonbelief is not the only binary thinking to be found in popular atheist rhetoric; there's also often the "evidence/no evidence" pairing, which creates a powerful bias for rejecting out of hand and refusing to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever.

Edit: Witness post #37 above this one.

Please share these "two bits of evidence."

 

[btthegreat]

Some folk seem not to understand that evidence ≠ proof, and that for any given theistic view (eg. Yahweh) it's possible for there to be two bits of evidence favouring that view and also a hundred or a thousand bits of evidence against that view. On balance a rational person might come to a conclusion of near-certainty that Yahweh does not exist, and yet still recognize that there are some little bits of evidence for Yahweh.

Unfortunately belief/nonbelief is not the only binary thinking to be found in popular atheist rhetoric; there's also often the "evidence/no evidence" pairing, which creates a powerful bias for rejecting out of hand and refusing to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever.

Edit: Witness post #37 above this one.

belief is for some liquid, not solid. By that I mean there are times when I 'toyed' with belief. Often after family death, or some very emotional times. Maybe I 'partially
or 'sort of' believed during a summer when my Grandmother is near death, but by late fall, I realize whatever it was that was making me want to pray to God' was completely gone again. All these shades are not covered by these This or that choices. Some people are not comfortable with labels at all because labels become boxes.

 

[soylentgreen]

Boy you make one big assumption. Its that I have been made aware of all the arguments for the existence of God, and that there is no other argument than may be more persuasive I have not been exposed to coming around the corner in a year or two or five. I learn new ideas, hear new arguments and people can give me something new to ponder on politics, religion or any other topic. One thing I do know, as time goes on is that my basis of knowledge always grows or changes.

" Can you point to one verifiable bit of physical evidence that point out a god must exist?

Wow you are planting your goal post rather high on the hill here.
1. No I do not need to point to any verifiable bit of evidence, and that evidence sure as hell does not need to show that a god must exist. A God may exist and I may not have seen any verifiable evidence yet and that is why it is safer for me to say I don't know whether a God exists or not.


You can leave your goalpost high on that hill, Its your goalpost, not mine and I want no part of it.

The goal posts are not that high at all. Instead you simply rely on a "maybe" on something that has no real reason to even give a maybe for. As you have no evidence of a god nor can you think of even one good reason for a god then by what means do you differentiate god from any other fictional character? Other than maybe.

 

[btthegreat]

The goal posts are not that high at all. Instead you simply rely on a "maybe" on something that has no real reason to even give a maybe for. As you have no evidence of a god nor can you think of even one good reason for a god then by what means do you differentiate god from any other fictional character? Other than maybe.

Maybe is enough. Many 'I don't know's' I have ever encountered in conversation with anyone, and I hear them every single day, have several 'maybes' described in some sentences directly thereafter.

"Do you think the boss is coming in today?" " I don't know. He worked on Saturday, so its overtime. Maybe he can't stall off those interviews he scheduled"

Do you believe God Exists? I don't know, I haven't seen any convincing evidence, I know I don't believe in the Christian Bible, and I have not heard much about the others that seem convincing, but I also haven't taken a comparative religion class or talked to anyone who was an expert in Eastern faiths. Maybe I haven't done enough exploration to know "

'I don't know' works just fine to express the exact same concept in both cases.

I also do not have a duty to seek out more information for theists or or a duty to analyze shit for atheists. I get to stick with 'I don't know if God exists, but I don't believe in any Gods existing either" and then I can be bored with the topic, or too disinterested to pursue further discussion, or too busy to pursue it for as long as I choose.

This is not something that is even up for debate. It's my choice to remain an agnostic atheist who admits upfront that I do not know squat, and declares I do not believe in squat.

 

[Mithrae]

Please share these "two bits of evidence."

'Evidence'; from evidens (“clear, evident”), in turn from ē (“out”) + videō (“see”): A witness report of a biblical miracle is evidence of a miracle, just as witness reports are evidence for any other historical event. It might not be very good evidence, but obviously it is evidence. Logically, if an unequivocal witness report gave us (say) 0.2% confidence that a miracle might possibly have occurred, then a possible witness report of disputed 50/50 authenticity could give us only 0.1% confidence that a miracle occurred. That's about where I'd put the alleged witness reports of the gospel of John, if John were the only information we had

Or indeed, considerably lower even than that if John were actually the only information we had on the subject; single, unverified reports of miracles count for virtually nothing in my opinion, I'd want multiple confirmations to really consider it at even a tenth of a percent, but obviously there are other (second- or third-hand) reports 'confirming' some of the miracles in John, so a fraction of a percent seems fair. On the other hand...

The 'wow factor'; healed amputation
A common sceptical claim is that god seems happy to heal the sniffles but never regrow a lost limb. Of course there are claims of healed amputations and more out there (google one by Smith Wigglesworth for an amusing example), but as always the problem is credibility. The most interesting case I've found is the alleged 'miracle of Calanda,' because of the challenge it presents not only to critics but also to Christians, particularly non-Catholics. The facts not in dispute are that in 17th century Spain a fellow named Miguel Juan Pelicer from Calanda travelled to Zaragosa, lived there for two years as an ostensibly one-legged beggar, then during a trip home claimed and was universally accepted as the recipient of miraculous healing.

The only question is whether his leg was actually amputated in the first place; and on that point, records of the investigation include the formal sworn testimonies of the surgeon (Juan de Estanga) who made the decision to amputate and continued care afterward, a surgeon who helped perform the amputation (Diego Millaruelo) and further confirmed Estanga's testimony, a worker (Juan Lorenzo Garcia) who buried the leg and a presbyter (Pascual del Cacho) who saw the amputated leg and further corroborated details.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=33692

The challenge for Christians here is that this is obviously far better evidence than there is for the resurrection or any biblical tale; four named witnesses, under formal sworn testimony, less than three years after the amputation, with far less obvious motives for (or evidence of) embellishment or fraud. And yet it's still obviously far from certain that god or 'Our Lady of the Pillar' healed this man; it still could have been a conspiracy to promote a fake miracle... so where does that leave the more dubious biblical tales?

The challenge for critics is that it could have been a conspiracy to promote a fake miracle, but that too is obviously far from certain. Tired, worn-out one-liners about "no evidence" obviously don't work here. Critics, like believers, often seem inclined to adopt a simplistic binary attitude, yea or nay to things they choose to accept or dismiss, but that's more akin to dogmatism than scepticism. The challenge from Calanda (and Lourdes and the other evidence above) is that after initial investigation, rationally we ought to assign some guestimate of probability or confidence in a proposition such as "Pellicer's leg was miraculously regrown" or "This was a fake miracle conspiracy," however arbitrary that may be, because the alternatives are even more arbitrary acceptance or dismissal.

How likely do you think the speculative, explain-away-the-evidence conspiracy theory for the 'miracle of Calanda' is?

How likely do you think the speculative, explain-away-the-evidence conspiracy theory for the 'miracle of Calanda' is?

 

[Chock Full o Nuts]

Maybe is enough. Many 'I don't know's' I have ever encountered in conversation with anyone, and I hear them every single day, have several 'maybes' described in some sentences directly thereafter.

"Do you think the boss is coming in today?" " I don't know. He worked on Saturday, so its overtime. Maybe he can't stall off those interviews he scheduled"

Do you believe God Exists? I don't know, I haven't seen any convincing evidence, I know I don't believe in the Christian Bible, and I have not heard much about the others that seem convincing, but I also haven't taken a comparative religion class or talked to anyone who was an expert in Eastern faiths. Maybe I haven't done enough exploration to know "

'I don't know' works just fine to express the exact same concept in both cases.

See, admitted ignorance is damn good reason for expressions of doubt.

Have you 'seen' your boss before, and and have evidence that they exist?

Jesus didn't show up as planned. The 'schedule'(good book) says should be here at 1...?

Running really late.

 

[btthegreat]

Have you 'seen' your boss before, and and have evidence that they exist?

Jesus didn't show up as planned. The 'schedule'(good book) says should be here at 1...?

Running really late.

His existence was not in question His schedule and intentions were. And I don't know if he's coming in on Saturday. Its a big fat 'maybe' and 'maybe' is fine.

If you don't like the evidence for Jesus as son of God, then do not believe in that premise. That too is fine.

 

[watsup]

a rational person might come to a conclusion of near-certainty that Yahweh does not exist, and yet still recognize that there are some little bits of evidence for Yahweh.

Or a rational person might ask for any person who possesses such evidence to show it, and to this point, there is none, so a rational person might make a rational decision that there is no God or gods. On the other hand, a superstitious person might accept “evidence” that has no way of actually being verified other than “faith and belief”.

Unfortunately belief/nonbelief is not the only binary thinking to be found in popular atheist rhetoric; there's also often the "evidence/no evidence" pairing, which creates a powerful bias for rejecting out of hand and refusing to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever.

This is the outright lie that we get all the time from the agnostics who insist on carrying water for the theists and religionists who also make this strawman accusation on a regular basis. Show some evidence and we would always be willing to acknowledge and consider it. Do you have any?

 

[Shrink726]

'Evidence'; from evidens (“clear, evident”), in turn from ē (“out”) + videō (“see”): A witness report of a biblical miracle is evidence of a miracle, just as witness reports are evidence for any other historical event. It might not be very good evidence, but obviously it is evidence. Logically, if an unequivocal witness report gave us (say) 0.2% confidence that a miracle might possibly have occurred, then a possible witness report of disputed 50/50 authenticity could give us only 0.1% confidence that a miracle occurred. That's about where I'd put the alleged witness reports of the gospel of John, if John were the only information we had

Or indeed, considerably lower even than that if John were actually the only information we had on the subject; single, unverified reports of miracles count for virtually nothing in my opinion, I'd want multiple confirmations to really consider it at even a tenth of a percent, but obviously there are other (second- or third-hand) reports 'confirming' some of the miracles in John, so a fraction of a percent seems fair. On the other hand...


How likely do you think the speculative, explain-away-the-evidence conspiracy theory for the 'miracle of Calanda' is?

I really wish I had some idea of what the heck you're talking about. As it is, I just see a lot of ambiguous words and concepts not at all well fleshed out. Oh, and I'm still waiting for any "bits" of evidence. Any at all will do.

You were the one who introduced the likelihood that there were some "bits" somewhere.

And anecdotal "evidence" from some deluded cult member 2000+ years ago doesn't count.

 

[watsup]

A witness report of a biblical miracle is evidence of a miracle, just as witness reports are evidence for any other historical event. It might not be very good evidence, but obviously it is evidence.

We’ve considered the “evidence”. It stinks. And all of your percentages are nothing but pure guesses that mean nothing at all other than being a device for argumentation. This is a fail on your part thus far.

 

[Shrink726]

Or a rational person might ask for any person who possesses such evidence to show it, and to this point, there is none, so a rational person might make a rational decision that there is no God or gods. On the other hand, a superstitious person might accept “evidence” that has no way of actually being verified other than “faith and belief”.




This is the outright lie that we get all the time from the agnostics who insist on carrying water for the theists and religionists who also make this strawman accusation on a regular basis. Show some evidence and we would a,ways be willing to acknowledge and consider it. Do you have any?

Excellent post!