Agnostics are Believers

[watsup]

Except its not. No evidence of God, no evidence of God. Its just that simple.

No evidence of God, but there is a God?

 

[btthegreat]

No evidence of God, but there is a God?

Your reading skills are rusty. It was post #49 the answer to your question is right there.

 

[btthegreat]

No evidence of God, no reason to believe or accept claims of God. It's just that simple.

I don't believe in God. The difference here is you want to draw a fundamental conclusion from that lack of evidence. I don't particularly.

 

[btthegreat]

You believe the strangest things.

Ii don't think atheists seek after God much.

We continue to seek objective, reality-based evidence, but you have not presented any. Why not?

I do not seek evidence of the existence of God and I am not sure why you do unless you are more driven by this possibility than I am. If evidence gets shoved in my face, I will look at it, but I am very comfortable not believing (atheism) and not knowing (agnosticism) There are so many more important subjects worth seeking evidence about, I am not going to waste a lot of time or energy seeking evidence on this topic.

I guess that's why I don't wander around chat sites asking anonymous posters for their evidence.

 

[Gordy327]

I don't believe in God. The difference here is you want to draw a fundamental conclusion from that lack of evidence. I don't particularly.

What conclusion would that be?

 

[Revelation]

for me it is everywhere if you wanna see 'evidence'.

it is good for Christians to experience miracles on a regular basis, it helps their faith and those around them.

my favorite miracles are medical and tech related. my Pagan neighbor was surprised when we prayed for our car and it was healed and a relative that was healed by God at the hospital. he was released by the doctors where they said nothing was wrong but their was Evidence of extreme injuries on the MRI

oh well happens if you seek after God. not so much if you don't seek after God and i don't think atheists seek after God much.

or do they?

blessings all, and get your miracles as there are plenty more available.





well of course there is 'none'.

how do you find something if you refuse to look for it?

if you deny the existence of something, and put Zero effort into it, you get the same results every time. Zero.




agnostics are superior in that they know that they don't know everything.

the average person cannot know even 1% of all the knowledge out there, so how can someone say positively that 'God doesn't exist' !!!

really people: um how do you 'know that' ???

answer: you can't possibly know that. at least the Agnostic is being honest with himself.

atheists like to fool themselves like the kids who cover their eyes so you can't see them. LOL............um people, God does see you, you can open your eyes now.

,,,

Just a small edit there to think about. If you were able to think outside your own box a little, sounds like you'd be a strong agnostic.

well that's a new thought to me.

actually i endeavor to think outside my own little box kinda like you do.

your posts concerning Agnosticism are interesting, and i feel your reasoning is vastly superior to the atheists running most of this forum. it doesn't make sense for them to claim to know everything when nobody can know everything.

not even me, but i do try to know everything; gonna take a few more life times for that.........probably more.

the only way to get around not knowing everything is to look for Evidence. my study of science in school had the effect on me that there is a Cause; God seems to be a sufficient cause. what else would be a better cause for the Universe other than God?

so i go with faith until the end where i fully expect to meet God.

Personally I think the strong agnostic claim that "We cannot possibly know whether there's a god" is a claim which pretends to know too much; how would we know that we cannot know that? All we can really talk about with some confidence is what we do and don't currently know, whether as individuals, or in general but not absolute terms (ie, I might have a reasonable impression of what most people know, but that obviously doesn't describe or limit what some people might know).

interesting. we don't have many agnostics here so i am learning from you how they think their Logic.

i keep coming back to my advice to seek after God. if he is Real he will show up in your life in a Curious way, he has promised to do that. no two people have the same experience. my father experienced God as an atheist back in the day when he decided to pray.

God did the rest.

same with me, i heard a gospel message and wanted salvation and talked to a preacher friend.

 

[btthegreat]

What conclusion would that be?

" - no reason to believe or accept claims of God" Probably the better word here is 'inference'. To be more precise, while I internalize this lack of evidence into a lack of belief that we are talking about into disbelief in God, but I don't extend it outward into a stance to promote.

While it is true nobody has shown me any evidence that God exists or more broadly anything supernatural exists, and it is true that lack of evidence has led me to atheism. I have not been looking, or reading or consistently asking people to show me proof that their God or any exists. I have not taken a single class, or attended a symposium, or read any material discussing this topic. I don't entertain lengthy discussions about theism or religion. So why would I make categorical definitive statements on the existance of God?

I don't know if God exists or not; I don't believe God exists, and I am happy to leave it at that.

 

[watsup]

" - no reason to believe or accept claims of God" Probably the better word here is 'inference'. To be more precise, while I internalize this lack of evidence into a lack of belief that we are talking about into disbelief in God, but I don't extend it outward into a stance to promote.

While it is true nobody has shown me any evidence that God exists or more broadly anything supernatural exists, and it is true that lack of evidence has led me to atheism. I have not been looking, or reading or consistently asking people to show me proof that their God or any exists. I have not taken a single class, or attended a symposium, or read any material discussing this topic. I don't entertain lengthy discussions about theism or religion. So why would I make categorical definitive statements on the existance of God?

I don't know if God exists or not and I am happy with that.

I know that no objective, reality-based evidence has been presented for a “God” and I have drawn the appropriate conclusion.

 

[btthegreat]

I know that no objective, reality-based evidence has been presented for a “God” and I have drawn the appropriate conclusion

I know that no objective, reality-based evidence has been presented for a "God" that I know of, and have drawn the appropriate conclusion.

 

[Gordy327]

" - no reason to believe or accept claims of God" Probably the better word here is 'inference'. To be more precise, while I internalize this lack of evidence into a lack of belief that we are talking about into disbelief in God, but I don't extend it outward into a stance to promote.

While it is true nobody has shown me any evidence that God exists or more broadly anything supernatural exists, and it is true that lack of evidence has led me to atheism. I have not been looking, or reading or consistently asking people to show me proof that their God or any exists. I have not taken a single class, or attended a symposium, or read any material discussing this topic. I don't entertain lengthy discussions about theism or religion. So why would I make categorical definitive statements on the existance of God?

I don't know if God exists or not; I don't believe God exists, and I am happy to leave it at that.

It's mostly theists who make declarative or affirmative claims for god. Such claims are logically indefensible and should be called out and/or challenged.

 

[btthegreat]

It's mostly theists who make declarative or affirmative claims for god. Such claims are logically indefensible and should be called out and/or challenged.

Never figured this part out. There is no inherent duty to 'call out' or challenge anyone for logically indefensible statements on any topic that they make. Can you envision what day to day conversation and interaction would look if that were our collective duty? Spend some time just listening to people talking to each other, ask yourself how many statements got made that were not 'logically defensible'. Every opportunity to begin a debate based on logic or reason, does not become a duty or obligation. Matter of fact, its a very narrow set of circumstances where that is appropriate. Social interaction would simply die from the pressure

I actively discourage theists from engaging. Its a waste of everyone's time. Its a futile act that frustrates but never resolves anything.

 

[gboisjo]

the only way to get around not knowing everything is to look for Evidence. my study of science in school had the effect on me that there is a Cause; God seems to be a sufficient cause. what else would be a better cause for the Universe other than God?

Nature, natural forces you or I don't yet understand.

Your leap to a god is just that, a gigantic jump into farcical superstition.

Your study of science should have left you in awe of whats out there.

Instead you threw it all away and settled on a god, I mean how academically lame is that.

 

[gboisjo]

so i go with faith until the end where i fully expect to meet God.

I got news for you, when your dead your dead, you don't exist anymore.

The only thing that remains is your dust and legacy.

Its time to put on your big boy pants and face reality like a grown up.

 

[btthegreat]

I got news for you, when your dead your dead, you don't exist anymore.

The only thing that remains is your dust and legacy.

Its time to put on your big boy pants and face reality like a grown up.

No. Your pants are no better. You are no more a 'grown up' than than theists are.

 

[gboisjo]

I got news for you, when your dead your dead, you don't exist anymore.

The only thing that remains is your dust and legacy.

Its time to put on your big boy pants and face reality like a grown up.

No. Your pants are no better. You are no more a 'grown up' than than theists are.

Yes. facing up to ones mortality is what adults do.

 

[watsup]

Never figured this part out. There is no inherent duty to 'call out' or challenge anyone for logically indefensible statements on any topic that they make. Can you envision what day to day conversation and interaction would look if that were our collective duty? Spend some time just listening to people talking to each other, ask yourself how many statements got made that were not 'logically defensible'. Every opportunity to begin a debate based on logic or reason, does not become a duty or obligation. Matter of fact, its a very narrow set of circumstances where that is appropriate. Social interaction would simply die from the pressure

I actively discourage theists from engaging. Its a waste of everyone's time. Its a futile act that frustrates but never resolves anything.

Umm—if you actively encourage disengagement—then what are you doing an a Beliefs and Skepticism debate room?

 

[watsup]

No. Your pants are no better. You are no more a 'grown up' than than theists are.

See post #66.

 

[btthegreat]

Yes. facing up to ones mortality is what adults do.

Facing up to one's obligations to others is what adults do. Facing mortality like an adult, is more about making a will, providing loved ones with consistent instructions on what to do during medical incapacity, maybe paying for your own service, making sure that the exit is smooth for those left behind. Its not about whether you believe in heaven, or whether you expect to meet an afterlife.

One's 'big boy pants' come in different sizes and colors. Some have big pockets to hold a lot of faith and reason too. I let people find their own style and size to wear.

 

[watsup]

the only way to get around not knowing everything is to look for Evidence. my study of science in school had the effect on me that there is a Cause; God seems to be a sufficient cause. what else would be a better cause for the Universe other than God?

What is the cause for God?

 

[Revelation]

What is the cause for God?

we don't know.

What is the cause of the Atheist's science god?

 

[btthegreat]

Umm—if you actively encourage disengagement—then what are you doing an a Beliefs and Skepticism debate room?

let me be more clear. I encourage theists not to engage in debates with atheists on the topic. Debate is by definition adversarial when conversation (that's other form of engagement we sometimes see here) need not be. I am not a theist. My goal is to sow seeds of humility and doubt, because purist inflexible positions are the problem, not what the position are.

'I don't know' is the most perfect phrase in theologically based discussions.

 

[watsup]

we don't know.

What is the cause of the Atheist's science god?

Science is not a “god”, it is just a way to try to understand the natural mysteries of the universe without overlaying a “God” and then proclaiming that is the final answer, as you do. You proclaim “God” as the ultimate cause when there is no possible way that you could know that.

 

[watsup]

let me be more clear. I encourage theists not to engage in debates with atheists on the topic. Debate is by definition adversarial when conversation (that's other form of engagement we sometimes see here) need not be. I am not a theist. My goal is to sow seeds of humility and doubt, because purist inflexible positions are the problem, not what the position are.

That’s fine, but I still can’t fathom why you would come to a debate forum to tell people not to debate. That just seems so counterintuitive as to border on the ridiculous.

 

[Mach]

A typical agnostic will claim

In my experience, agnosticism is usually a confused position that ends up in one of these buckets:

1. They claim to know god is possible, without evidence (an error in reasoning and lacks a working definition of god so also an error likely in logic)
2. They claim to know, we cannot know (a contradiction, a logical error)
3. They claim they don't know (acceptable, reasonable)

2, 3 profess no belief in god.
1 is arguably similarly to a theistic claim of god being possible, and makes a similar error in claiming "god is a reasonable term, and that they know god IS possible, with no evidence to support that claim".
So they engage in a similar error (belief without reason), but I am not sure it rises to the level of belief IN god. Just a belief it's "possible" (which is in error of course).

 

[btthegreat]

That’s fine, but I still can’t fathom why you would come to a debate forum to tell people not to debate. That just seems so counterintuitive as to border on the ridiculous.

I think you need to look around this forum. You will see forums and sub-forums all over here where 'debating' is not the primary mode of communication. There is a ton of chatting, exchanges in opinion, and sharing of experiences going on all over the place. I invite you to explore the Home page, and start clicking in subforums and reading.

There is even a place to exchange recipes or share humorous stories and videos.