It seems there isn’t very much difference in how we feel: as I said, you are not one of the extremists I was referring to. However, because of the inherent nature of God, I’m not sure we could ever have enough knowledge to absolutely disprove his existence - there will likely always be things we don’t know, and God could forever reside in that realm. Once again, it is extremely difficult to absolutely disprove anything, so I treat the question of God the same way as I treat everything else: there is no evidence to support his existence, so I start with the logical assumption that he doesn’t exist.

I don’t consider my opinion to be logically superior to that of atheists, but:

We feel our opinion is actually less of a belief than your’s, as you are starting with the belief that the existence or otherwise of God is inherently unknowable

I didn’t say the existence or otherwise of God/demiurg/source/creator/creators was inherently unknowable, I said it’s inherently unknowable NOW. Yet. Nowadays. Some day we’ll know. I choose to make no assumptions whatsoever until I can know the answer. I’m pretty sure we’ll find an answer some day. I’m postponing the act of answering to a question I don’t have the means of answering yet. I believe that the question to that answer will probably be found by mankind some day. But I think I have little chances of being alive when that happens. I find my reasons for not choosing an answer just as logical as anyone else’s.

Originally Posted By Dama
I haven’t had a look outside the universe or into other planes of existence. I don’t know what is out there. The possibilities are infinite until we can have a peek out there. As a result, I think that choosing an answer for a question we can’t know the answer to (yet), is a form of belief. Among trillions and trillions of possible stuff that can be there out of the universe, the believer choses one, and the atheist chooses one. OK, perfect, I don’t mind, since I’ve known good people among the atheists, the believers and the agnostics, and as long as people are good, productive and reasonable, I don’t care what their approach to that topic is. However, from the point of view of an agnostic, it isn’t evident that there is no God, or gods, or whatever… You are sure there is no god. I’m not. Of course, some day we may know if there is or not, but as I wrote before, it requires taking a good look out of the universe. Which we may be able to do some day, but we can’t do now. So, from my point of view, there’s a question which, so far, has unlimited answers. The believer chooses an answer that works for him (life after death, justice, a loving god). The atheists also chooses an answer (among possible trillions) that works for him (there’s no evidence of God, so there is no god or gods, I work in the here and now). From my point of view, both atheists and believers choose one answer among the possible trillions answers. And it IS a chosen answer, since so far we can’t really know which one is true. So, despite the difference you see, from an agnostic point of view, the atheist approach seems pretty similar to the believer’s approach. No offense meant, but you have CHOSEN an answer that you don’t really have.

This is a misunderstanding of my position, and that of most other reasonable atheists I would imagine. We aren’t sure God doesn’t exist; we merely start with the logical assumption that he doesn’t until there is evidence to suggest otherwise, which is the true scientific and skeptical approach to determining the existence or otherwise of anything. We feel our opinion is actually less of a belief than your’s, as you are starting with the belief that the existence or otherwise of God is inherently unknowable, which is illogical, given that evidence of his existence should be everywhere. We do not accept that there is any reason that the question of the existence of God should be given any sort of special treatment relative to any other question of the existence or non-existence of anything. Once again, we do not believe in the non-existence of God - we simply don’t believe in the existence of anything for which there is no evidence. You on the other hand believe in the idea that the existence of God is inherently unknowable, which once again is illogical. So in summary, by the same logic agnostics use, you have at least as much faith as atheists do (indeed, in my opinion more so).

Now, about your “that argument can be applied to everyone who doesn’t believe”, I think it’s flawed. You could tell me I have faith in pink invisible unicorns NOT existing. But there’s a difference. I can have a look, and investigate, and try to find proof in this universe, and in this universe, pink invisible unicorns do not exist (out of it, I wouldn’t say). So, atheists haven’t seen god in this universe and plane of existence. Problem is… we don’t know what’s out there. And we can’t know… yet. Maybe some day we’ll solve the question. But until it’s solved, you have chosen an answer for that question, and it’s logical for those of us who remain unknowing, to perceive your choice as somewhat similar to the choice of believers.

Once again, there is no logical reason to think that the question of the existence of God is any different to the question of existence of pink unicorns, or anything else for that matter - you could apply exactly the same special pleading to pink unicorns that you do to God. See how silly this is?

Of course, you can tell me that if there is some huge being out of the universe, that doesn’t mean that any religion in Earth is true, that those were created by humans and that the infinite possibilities out of our universe don’t have to mean we get an afterlife and a loving god after death. Now that’s a good point. But among your other points, there are flaws. For example, try not to use what you think other people might have thought. You don’t know what Darwin would have said, so try to use the opinions of atheists if you want to back your points, don’t use agnostics and then try to make them atheists. I know it sucks that someone so intelligent that Newton was a believer, and that it possibly was because he had no other answer for the huge questions. But though I understand your point about Darwin and Huxley, it’s just as far-fetched as the “Jesus would have done X” of the believers. Newton was Christian, Darwin and Huxley were agnostics, and if you want atheist scientists to support your claims, you have lots. Use them. Don’t invent what agnostics would have been nowadays. It doesn’t add credibility to your points.

Actually, I put this point in there mainly to pre-empt one of the most common arguments used by agnostic extremists (Darwin and Huxley were agnostics, so who are you to argue with them?).

And… try not to call agnostics “extremists”, only because we perceive your choice of answers somewhat similar to that of believers’. I don’t consider myself superior to either believers or atheists, but I can’t help to perceive atheism as a form of belief. As I told, I don’t think it’s evident that there is no… being out of this universe. I’d rather say I don’t have the answers than choose one among trillions. I wouldn’t call that extremism.

The people I call extremists are those who consider their opinion to be logically superior to that of atheists (and think athesits and theists have equal levels of faith), so in that sense, you aren’t one.

I haven’t had a look outside the universe or into other planes of existence. I don’t know what is out there. The possibilities are infinite until we can have a peek out there. As a result, I think that choosing an answer for a question we can’t know the answer to (yet), is a form of belief. Among trillions and trillions of possible stuff that can be there out of the universe, the believer choses one, and the atheist chooses one. OK, perfect, I don’t mind, since I’ve known good people among the atheists, the believers and the agnostics, and as long as people are good, productive and reasonable, I don’t care what their approach to that topic is. However, from the point of view of an agnostic, it isn’t evident that there is no God, or gods, or whatever… You are sure there is no god. I’m not. Of course, some day we may know if there is or not, but as I wrote before, it requires taking a good look out of the universe. Which we may be able to do some day, but we can’t do now. So, from my point of view, there’s a question which, so far, has unlimited answers. The believer chooses an answer that works for him (life after death, justice, a loving god). The atheists also chooses an answer (among possible trillions) that works for him (there’s no evidence of God, so there is no god or gods, I work in the here and now). From my point of view, both atheists and believers choose one answer among the possible trillions answers. And it IS a chosen answer, since so far we can’t really know which one is true. So, despite the difference you see, from an agnostic point of view, the atheist approach seems pretty similar to the believer’s approach. No offense meant, but you have CHOSEN an answer that you don’t really have.

Now, about your “that argument can be applied to everyone who doesn’t believe”, I think it’s flawed. You could tell me I have faith in pink invisible unicorns NOT existing. But there’s a difference. I can have a look, and investigate, and try to find proof in this universe, and in this universe, pink invisible unicorns do not exist (out of it, I wouldn’t say). So, atheists haven’t seen god in this universe and plane of existence. Problem is… we don’t know what’s out there. And we can’t know… yet. Maybe some day we’ll solve the question. But until it’s solved, you have chosen an answer for that question, and it’s logical for those of us who remain unknowing, to perceive your choice as somewhat similar to the choice of believers.

Of course, you can tell me that if there is some huge being out of the universe, that doesn’t mean that any religion in Earth is true, that those were created by humans and that the infinite possibilities out of our universe don’t have to mean we get an afterlife and a loving god after death. Now that’s a good point. But among your other points, there are flaws. For example, try not to use what you think other people might have thought. You don’t know what Darwin would have said, so try to use the opinions of atheists if you want to back your points, don’t use agnostics and then try to make them atheists. I know it sucks that someone so intelligent that Newton was a believer, and that it possibly was because he had no other answer for the huge questions. But though I understand your point about Darwin and Huxley, it’s just as far-fetched as the “Jesus would have done X” of the believers. Newton was Christian, Darwin and Huxley were agnostics, and if you want atheist scientists to support your claims, you have lots. Use them. Don’t invent what agnostics would have been nowadays. It doesn’t add credibility to your points.

And… try not to call agnostics “extremists”, only because we perceive your choice of answers somewhat similar to that of believers’. I don’t consider myself superior to either believers or atheists, but I can’t help to perceive atheism as a form of belief. As I told, I don’t think it’s evident that there is no… being out of this universe. I’d rather say I don’t have the answers than choose one among trillions. I wouldn’t call that extremism.

All the best. May the forces be with you!

As for the idea that morality comes from religion, nothing could be further from the truth! After all, if we did what God does in the Bible, we’d all be mass murderers, amongst many, many other horrible things (the God of the Old Testament must be the most vile, evil and despicable being ever created by mankind!). I will be writing a post in the future to explain where our morality really comes from.

Many atheists argue that they believe in rationality over belief. However, one thing has striked over my head and my mom and teacher always said: If world would have been better without any religion, so how on Earth did we develop ourselves from leading an ascetic life like tribes to civilised modern beings right now. All aspects oin the development of humanity came about from religious values, if not, then we would have been ignorant as the tribes. Morality developed out of religions, without it we would have found nothing wrong to kill somebody. Furthermore, most atheists like Angelina Jolie chant “thank God” or ” oh Lord” quite often. Is there rebuttal for all this?

1. God was at the very beginning of everything.

2. God created everything.

3. God holds everything together.

4. God determines what will happen in the future.

5. God begins with the Letter “G.”

Therefore, God’s Real Name Is: Gravity