Found this from a philosophy forum:

[agnostically]

Hi, was wondering what you think?

an Atheist is:
Why do you call yourself an atheist when You can’t prove God does not exist any more than Christians can prove God does exist? So you’re proud of that because? Why do you like the taste of mustard? Why do you not like the taste of mustard? Who cares since believers cannot prove the existence of God any more than Science can prove God doesn’t exist or can prove the big bang theory or intelligent design or any other theories of how mankind was created. That’s why it’s called a “theory” because theories cannot be proven unless/until they are proven and you’ll almost certainly be deceased without ever knowing or proving?

But maybe you’re exploring forums because you’re not truly an atheist either and so you’re naturally trying to find out which “theory” might be best for You to believe? And if you really want to know if God exists, you shouldn’t be asking this forum but rather you have to ask God because that’s the way it works and if so, you’re in luck because your options are simple too? It’s either True or False that God exists. Which means:
1. False; if God doesn’t exist and you’re content to choose death as your inevitable destiny, then you will die an atheist.
2. True; if God does exist and you choose death instead of eternal life in paradise, then you will die an atheist and then be resurrected only to suffer God’s wrath for eternity instead.

Hmmm, wonder what a sane person would hope for? What were the choices again? Oh ya; it’s either eternal paradise or eternal suffering. Yikes that’s a toughy because who in their right mind would want to pass up the hope for ‘eternal suffering’? :)

a forum-dwelling so-called Christian is:
What are You doing in an anonymous forum? Do you not know the meaning of “anonymous” and ‘deception’ nor haven’t read 2 Corinthians 4:2? Do you think that God doesn’t notice believers are just using the Internet as an excuse to ‘avoid’ Having To Physically Go Into All The World and do what Jesus commands [Mark 16:15-18]? Ergo, most believers aren’t joining forums to serve God or experience fellowship in Christ but rather they just want to boast and start arguments and insult everyone who doesn’t agree with their limited understanding of “God” or even worse and perhaps more likely; they were tempted into a forum by the devil to distract them From God? Thus, “forums” created to entice idle lazy disobedient believers to cower behind Alias usernames being judgmental hypocrites hatefully spewing biblical quotes from ignorance instead of declaring their Real names and going into the Real world and serving God as they Really should be doing and perhaps like many believers that spend most of their time studying the bible instead of ‘doing’ what it says? Can you say: [BUSTED!]? ;)

an Agnostic is:
Welcome to the majority of population earth who don’t know everything, can’t prove much of anything else and talk mostly about what they only ‘wish’ they knew but don’t need to give it a Name? :) Though I cannot fault anyone and it’s certainly your prerogative to sit on the fence; did you ever think of Making Up Your Mind About It, as long as it’s not evil, and ‘going with it’ to see what it might lead to? Most common synonyms perhaps for agnostic:
unsure, ignorant, clueless, dumbfounded, constipated, wishy-washy, lofty, whiney, honest, uncommitted, hypocrite, doubtful, along with hundreds of others most of which perhaps most people would probably not want to be thought of ‘as’? Some possibly expected and mostly humorous responses for when someone says: “Hey everyone, I’m agnostic.”:
1. Who cares? 2. Either go or get off the pot. 3. Oh sorry; my condolences. 4. Why? 5. And You’re proud of that because? 6. What time is it? 7. Good for you. 8. Have you tried therapy? 9. Love to stay and chat but I’ve actually made up my mind to be something today. 10. How? 11. Is it contagious/hereditary?

[Sage]

Speaking as an atheist...


an Atheist is:
Why do you call yourself an atheist when You can’t prove God does not exist any more than Christians can prove God does exist?
The burden of evidence falls upon the one making the positive claim.

So you’re proud of that because?
I am neither proud nor ashamed that I am an atheist. I am content in reaching what i feel is the most logical and rational conclusion based on the evidence I have before me.

Why do you like the taste of mustard? Why do you not like the taste of mustard?
Some people think it tastes good and others do not. That's a neuropsychology sort of issue, though, not so much philosophy.

For the record, I like mustard.

Who cares since believers cannot prove the existence of God any more than Science can prove God doesn’t exist or can prove the big bang theory or intelligent design or any other theories of how mankind was created.
I already addressed the issue of the burden of evidence. I debate these things because in doing so I may change the minds of others. I feel we are all better off if we hold more logical, rational viewpoints.

In addition, the Big Bang is not intended to prove the origin of the universe. The Big Bang merely explains universal expansion and red shift.

That’s why it’s called a “theory” because theories cannot be proven unless/until they are proven and you’ll almost certainly be deceased without ever knowing or proving?
There's a difference between a 'theory' in the colloquial sense and a 'theory' in the scientific sense. The denotation of the word changes significantly based on the context it is used in.

But maybe you’re exploring forums because you’re not truly an atheist either and so you’re naturally trying to find out which “theory” might be best for You to believe?
I've examined other viewpoints in regards to religion and I feel that, based on the evidence and reasoning available, it is most probable that there is no god or gods.

And if you really want to know if God exists, you shouldn’t be asking this forum but rather you have to ask God because that’s the way it works
To ask God a question, one must already support the premise that such a figure exists, thus making the question pointless.

and if so, you’re in luck because your options are simple too? It’s either True or False that God exists. Which means:
1. False; if God doesn’t exist and you’re content to choose death as your inevitable destiny, then you will die an atheist.
2. True; if God does exist and you choose death instead of eternal life in paradise, then you will die an atheist and then be resurrected only to suffer God’s wrath for eternity instead.
This is a false dichotomy, the God of the Bible is no more plausible than Thor, Zeus, Odin, or Luke Skywalker. I would also argue that an eternity in paradise is just as undesirable as an eternity in suffering. I addressed the issue of eternal paradise in this (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=74511) thread a very long time ago. Don't reply to it now, though, it's older than you are.

Hmmm, wonder what a sane person would hope for? What were the choices again? Oh ya; it’s either eternal paradise or eternal suffering. Yikes that’s a toughy because who in their right mind would want to pass up the hope for ‘eternal suffering’? :)
Questioning the sanity of someone for merely taking a different or unconventional viewpoint is not a good way to earn respect on a debate forum.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

Well done. your expert detective skills have found something that will finally convert the non believers kudos. here's a good point to remember he is bashing forums by posting on forums. he's obviously religious and anything that contradicts his religion he will disagree with. a scientific theory is a theory until it is proven which it may someday be, as hard as it may be to believe maybe man hasn't yet gained the ability to find the answers. "judge not lest ye be judged" wow he is doing a bang up job don't you think you can just feel his love towards athiests and agnostics with every insult. someone had too much time on their hands obviously. don't try to refute a theory with a theory. also you want to convert people just because they might burn in hell if they don't believe then they don't truly believe they're doing it just in case. a church of scared non believers i'm sure that's what a god would want. ill Add more when i'm on a computer but i'm sure you get the general gist of my post. i smell hypocrisy

[Azunite]

Some parts are right, but some of them are just too overwhelming ( is that the word? ) for Atheists.
I mean, I also some part of what Sage said.
But besides that, everything is so, so true....

[agnostically]

Well done.

Sounds like you're trying to agnostically agree and disagree with two scenarios at the same time but really all you want everyone to know is how much you hate people who are religious? Well done, I guess? ;)

Do not double post there is an edit button for a reason ~ Archangel_Liriel

Speaking as an atheist...

Then since you can't prove atheism/creationism either, you are therefore agnostic by your own definition. So who do you think you're fooling because philosophically speaking; you cannot be something you cannot prove? :)

[Perseus]

Then since you can't prove atheism/creationism either, you are therefore agnostic by your own definition. So who do you think you're fooling because philosophically speaking; you cannot be something you cannot prove? :)

Why didn't you reply to his whole post?

And everything in science is a theory, including gravity, by the way.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

Sounds like you're trying to agnostically agree and disagree with two scenarios at the same time but really all you want everyone to know is how much you hate people who are religious? Well done, I guess? ;)

You have one hundred percent missed what i was saying let me clarify. Also sarcasm was used too. I spoke my viewpoint on what you posted but i will clarify further

an Atheist is:
Why do you call yourself an atheist when You can’t prove God does not exist any more than Christians can prove God does exist?

For the simple fact that everyone is different, has different viewpoints and can choose for themselves.

So you’re proud of that because?

I do not believe I ever said i was proud, a bit stereotypical to dump us all in the one boat don't you think? tut tut

Why do you like the taste of mustard? Why do you not like the taste of mustard?

Our taste buds play a big role in how we taste foods. Everyone has four types of taste bud - sweet, sour, salty, and bitter. The more taste buds you have, the more intensely you perceive tastes, especially bitter ones. People who are particularly sensitive to strong flavors are called supertasters and can have up to twice as many taste buds as the rest of us. Around 25% of people are said to be non-tasters, 25% supertasters and 50% medium tasters. The supertaster gene could be left over from our ancestors where it could have acted to stop us from eating unsafe foods that often taste a bit horrid.

Taste isn't only down to our taste buds - it also depends on how our brain reads the signals from our tongues. The ability of a person to smell and taste depends on around 1000 genes, although half of these appear to be inactive. A few years ago, scientists discovered that around 50 of these genes are active in some people while not in others and they believe that it is these genes that make some of us like some foods while the same foods make others want to vomit! Every person is thought to have different genes switched on and off, leading to the presence of different receptors for different flavors.

That is pretty much why i do not like mustard.

Who cares since believers cannot prove the existence of God any more than Science can prove God doesn’t exist or can prove the big bang theory or intelligent design or any other theories of how mankind was created. That’s why it’s called a “theory” because theories cannot be proven unless/until they are proven and you’ll almost certainly be deceased without ever knowing or proving?

Religion is another way of "knowing about" the natural world. While science bases all statements upon observations, religion bases many of its statements upon faith or divine revelation. The main difference between religion and science is that only religion has a component of faith. Faith statements are not ultimately based upon the observable, and are not tentative, nor testable nor falsifiable through the scientific method, but are believed to be true for reasons that go beyond empirically observable evidence--often because of divine revelation.

Because religion has faith, religious beliefs are held absolutely, and faith may maintain religious beliefs if there is an absence of confirming evidence. Scientific beliefs are said to be "tentative," for nothing in science is absolutely proven; scientific claims are only said to be "supported to a given degree by the evidence." Only religious beliefs are "dogmatic" in the sense that they are claimed to be absolutely known to be completely true.

But maybe you’re exploring forums because you’re not truly an atheist either and so you’re naturally trying to find out which “theory” might be best for You to believe? And if you really want to know if God exists, you shouldn’t be asking this forum but rather you have to ask God because that’s the way it works and if so, you’re in luck because your options are simple too? It’s either True or False that God exists. Which means:
1. False; if God doesn’t exist and you’re content to choose death as your inevitable destiny, then you will die an atheist.
2. True; if God does exist and you choose death instead of eternal life in paradise, then you will die an atheist and then be resurrected only to suffer God’s wrath for eternity instead.

Prove to me that it must be one or the other. We return to the universe our bodies we become parts of planets in the very end as we break down into our most basic components. You speak of what you deem to be the soul, prove the soul exists then I will believe it may be one or the other. From Emily Dickinson "then the windows failed, and then I could not see to see." The ideal of a soul is subject to ones own belief. It must exist for either alternative to be true. For all anyone knows we could be transported to an alternate universe the moment we die. Infinite possibilities.

Hmmm, wonder what a sane person would hope for? What were the choices again? Oh ya; it’s either eternal paradise or eternal suffering. Yikes that’s a toughy because who in their right mind would want to pass up the hope for ‘eternal suffering’? :)

This statement is only true if we are to believe said above, if we do not your point is invalid. I choose neither I choose the unknown.

a forum-dwelling so-called Christian is:
What are You doing in an anonymous forum? Do you not know the meaning of “anonymous” and ‘deception’ nor haven’t read 2 Corinthians 4:2? Do you think that God doesn’t notice believers are just using the Internet as an excuse to ‘avoid’ Having To Physically Go Into All The World and do what Jesus commands [Mark 16:15-18]? Ergo, most believers aren’t joining forums to serve God or experience fellowship in Christ but rather they just want to boast and start arguments and insult everyone who doesn’t agree with their limited understanding of “God” or even worse and perhaps more likely; they were tempted into a forum by the devil to distract them From God? Thus, “forums” created to entice idle lazy disobedient believers to cower behind Alias usernames being judgmental hypocrites hatefully spewing biblical quotes from ignorance instead of declaring their Real names and going into the Real world and serving God as they Really should be doing and perhaps like many believers that spend most of their time studying the bible instead of ‘doing’ what it says? Can you say: [BUSTED!]? ;)

Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." You judge others is that not against your teachings. You judge people for judging others. Many religious people can enter debates and actually debate their beliefs not just show off or start arguments. Do not stereotype its bad for you and my respect for a debater dwindles when they do such. Tempted into a forum by the devil? If the devil does not exist then you are going to be embarrassed lol. In all honesty if you could prove god existed then the devil is again another entity you do not have proof for. Forums were not created to entice lazy disobedient believers to cower no it was created for a different reason if you care to read why then do if not dont post about which you know nothing about. Biblical quotes are used to back up a point about a religious idea so that people dont spout a load of crap that their religion doesnt actually believe it is helpful in most cases. Who are you to tell people what they should and shouldn't do? Youre cockiness in that last question has just shown that you are confident in what you say to an extreme point open your mind, take in new ideas and make a more informed choice please, its how mankind has grown throughout history.

an Agnostic is:
Welcome to the majority of population earth who don’t know everything, can’t prove much of anything else and talk mostly about what they only ‘wish’ they knew but don’t need to give it a Name? :) Though I cannot fault anyone and it’s certainly your prerogative to sit on the fence; did you ever think of Making Up Your Mind About It, as long as it’s not evil, and ‘going with it’ to see what it might lead to?

People who are unsure are entitled to such a stance, at least their mind is open to new ideas and possibilities which you are not judging by your post maybe you should deign to be more like an agnostic then you might allow for a more open minded view of the world and avoid hypocrisy. Maybe just maybe now people do not believe in a religion for a reason so NO they should not just follow a path blindly as they will learn nothing that way.

Most common synonyms perhaps for agnostic:
unsure, ignorant, clueless, dumbfounded, constipated, wishy-washy, lofty, whiney, honest, uncommitted, hypocrite, doubtful, along with hundreds of others most of which perhaps most people would probably not want to be thought of ‘as’?

Tut tut there we go generalizing again, stereotyping at its finest. That is so close minded i can't think of a better example. Again: Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

Some possibly expected and mostly humorous responses for when someone says: “Hey everyone, I’m agnostic.”:
1. Who cares? 2. Either go or get off the pot. 3. Oh sorry; my condolences. 4. Why? 5. And You’re proud of that because? 6. What time is it? 7. Good for you. 8. Have you tried therapy? 9. Love to stay and chat but I’ve actually made up my mind to be something today. 10. How? 11. Is it contagious/hereditary?

Well noone i know would boast that, may answer if asked but ive never heard someone just exclaim it, 1.they care for themselves you should too. 2.Insinuating agnostics are potheads. 3.Your condolences really thats meant to be funny? 4. Because they choose to be 5. That statement is in no way stating they are proud so that reply is totally invalid. 6.your power to change topics is astounding. 7.thank you. 8.Insinuating people who arent religious need therapy. 9.So because i choose to be open minded i can't make a decision. 10. Thats just......... ya. 11. No it is not and if you do not know that i suggest you refrain from posting threads like this.

[Sage]

Then since you can't prove atheism/creationism either,
Did you not read one single word I posted about the burden of evidence?

you are therefore agnostic by your own definition.
First, I never defined agnosticism. Don't put words in my mouth. Second, if all your argument amounts to is a rewording of "WELL, YOU CAN SAY WE DON'T REALLY KNOW IF WE KNOW ANYTHING", then everything you are attempting to argue lacks substance and there's no reason for anyone to waste time debating your hollow arguments.

So who do you think you're fooling
This part doesn't have to do with the debate itself, but I'll give you some friendly advice. Such language implies that the person you are arguing is disingenuous and a liar, and using such loaded terms is a pretty good way to make people hate you.

And don't take this out of context, I never explicitly said I hate you. I do not.

because philosophically speaking; you cannot be something you cannot prove? :)
I recommend you look into the difference between reasonable and unreasonable doubt. To be able to debate anything, one must always assume a few given premises are true: For example, we assume can know certain things through various means of reasoning and logic, or we assume that any of the things we're talking about exist. The only time we would not assume these premises is when the debate itself would be on the validity of these premises themselves, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about you questioning the validity of various stances on the issue of religion, in which I feel you've not made your point very well, seeing as I was able to raise valid counterpoints against virtually everything you've said on atheism. I would also add that you have yet to respond to any of my counterpoints, and until you raise valid counterpoints of your own against them, they stand. For now, you're simply being smug and playing the "well nobody really knows anything" card which is in and of itself a hollow, pointless stance that no respectable philosopher would take seriously.

But hey, thanks for playing. Do respond to all my other arguments too, sometime, if it's not too much trouble. : )

[agnostically]

Reallyyyyyyyyyyyyy boring drivel kids. Why not try talking about what you know, not what you wish you knew? ;)

[Sage]

Reallyyyyyyyyyyyyy boring drivel kids. Why not try talking about what you know, not what you wish you knew? ;)

http://i51.tinypic.com/2m9pw3.png

Be as smug as you like, but alas, merely wanting you be intellectual does not make one so. If you're not going to reply to any of the counterpoints raised against you, I see no further point in debating this.

[Azunite]

If the thread founder does not listen to LIVE examples, why does he still resist ?
This thread is fail

[Sonart]

.

Why not try talking about what you know, not what you wish you knew?"Shane... come back!!!"

Gee whilikers, you drop into that 'other' forum, cut & paste the exact same OP, strafe posters with the exact same response as above, and then leave us wanting more? :what: You're not a {{GASP}} TROLL are you?

Anyway, here's my response to your OP... {{snip-snip}} ...from that 'other' forum (http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philosophy-religion/30935-saw-philosophy-forum-2.html#post746535).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Why do you call yourself an atheist when You can’t prove God does not exist any more than Christians can prove God does exist?Because every fiber of my logical mind tells me gods don't exist.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts

I tried believing. Asked Jesus into my life, studied the Bible, the whole deal... it lasted maybe a couple of months before I shook my head and said "Nah, sorry, I just can't buy this.".

So you’re proud of that because?
I'm no prouder of it than I am of being right handed. I'm just pissed at self-righteous Christians who insist on telling my fellow citizens that I'm evil and immoral by definition, to the point where atheists are the most despised minority in America for the least reason (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/).

If a Christian doesn't have a problem with atheists, fine... we're good. If they insist on attacking me simply because I don't believe what they do, that's fine too... I'll simply have fun showing them to be the mud dumb, superstitious, self-absorbed lunkheads they are.

But maybe you’re exploring forums because you’re not truly an atheist eitherNah, no worries there. There's not a serious doubt in my mind. To the contrary, I'm totally convinced that all religious belief is based on the fact that evolution has hardwired the human brain for spirituality.

1. False; if God doesn’t exist and you’re content to choose death as your inevitable destiny, then you will die an atheist.
2. True; if God does exist and you choose death instead of eternal life in paradise, then you will die an atheist and then be resurrected only to suffer God’s wrath for eternity instead.
Oh goodie... Pascal's Wager. Here, I'll see Pascal's bet, and raise you...

"Given that the vast amounts of rationally explained scientific knowledge we now possess were all once unexplainable mysteries which we attributed to the workings of gods, the best bet is that those things we still don't understand also have rational, scientific explanations that do not include gods. We just don't know what they are yet." - Daniels Wager

Otherwise, I don't believe in hell, but if you do, you're welcome to it.

Do you not know the meaning of “anonymous” and ‘deception’ nor haven’t read 2 Corinthians 4:2? Do you think that God doesn’t notice believers are just using the Internet as an excuse to ‘avoid’ Having To Physically Go Into All The World and do what Jesus commands [Mark 16:15-18]Oh goodie again... quotes from a 2,000 yr-old anthology of chronicles of oral histories, written years after the fact by religious zealots so scientifically illiterate they didn't know day & night were caused by the earth spinning on it's axis while orbiting the sun.

But of course your point wasn't directed at non-believers, was it? It's to shame any other Christians here for not being sufficiently arrogant, tribal and closed minded.

they just want to boast and start arguments and insult everyone who doesn’t agree with their limited understanding of “God”Says the dood who's first post on this board insults atheists, agnostics and fellow Christians.

You da man!

Most common synonyms perhaps for agnostic: unsure, ignorant, clueless, dumbfounded, constipated, wishy-washy, lofty, whiney, honest, uncommitted, hypocrite, doubtful, blah, blah, blah...
And yet, atheists and agnostics turn out to be the most knowledgeable on the subject of religion (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928) than any other religious group. Agnostics being different than the category 'Nothing in Particular', who knew the least of anyone.

How 'ironical'.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928No you weren't. You were there to insult people, plain and simple.

So perhaps it's merely a choice issue in that regard is all I'm saying.
Not a choice here. The chance that gods exist are about the same as the chance that we're all human batteries for the Matrix, lyng unconscious in tubs of bio-fluid, piled on massive towers and being fed virtual lives by a massive computer. None and not much.

You'd have to ask God I suppose?
Or my dog. I'll get the same answer.

Talk about what you know; not what you wish you knew.Gosh, where have we seen this response before... :yawn:

Why so dismissive?

And then followed by four more equally dismissive posts that simply blow off any attempt to respond to you. Aren't we just the exemplar of Christian compassion.

.

[Sith Lord 13]

Speaking as an atheist...

Speaking as someone who bounces back and forth, I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

The burden of evidence falls upon the one making the positive claim.

Yes, and compared to agnosticism, you're making a positive claim of non-existence.

I am neither proud nor ashamed that I am an atheist. I am content in reaching what i feel is the most logical and rational conclusion based on the evidence I have before me.

That's good, but do remember there are many smug atheists who love to ridicule anyone who believes in a god of any kind.

Some people think it tastes good and others do not. That's a neuropsychology sort of issue, though, not so much philosophy.

It raises the philosophical question of what makes a person a person as opposed to a giant walking organic computer.

For the record, I like mustard.

Me too. :)

I already addressed the issue of the burden of evidence. I debate these things because in doing so I may change the minds of others. I feel we are all better off if we hold more logical, rational viewpoints.

How is it logical to take absence of proof (even though there is some evidence) as proof of absence? There is some debatable evidence, but enough that, to me, any logical person would say it's worth of further investigation.

In addition, the Big Bang is not intended to prove the origin of the universe. The Big Bang merely explains universal expansion and red shift.

It explains the formation of this universe, if not the exact origin. (ie. it goes back to the instant before the explosion, but no further.)

There's a difference between a 'theory' in the colloquial sense and a 'theory' in the scientific sense. The denotation of the word changes significantly based on the context it is used in.

Agreed. English really needs to create two separate terms for the two different kinds of theories.

I've examined other viewpoints in regards to religion and I feel that, based on the evidence and reasoning available, it is most probable that there is no god or gods.

Probable, OK, but what is your degree of certainty in that probability?

To ask God a question, one must already support the premise that such a figure exists, thus making the question pointless.

And what about personal searching?

This is a false dichotomy, the God of the Bible is no more plausible than Thor, Zeus, Odin, or Luke Skywalker. I would also argue that an eternity in paradise is just as undesirable as an eternity in suffering. I addressed the issue of eternal paradise in this (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=74511) thread a very long time ago. Don't reply to it now, though, it's older than you are.

Paschal's wager is a valid concept, and one can safely assume that eternal paradise would be pleasant and that the concept has been poorly described.

Questioning the sanity of someone for merely taking a different or unconventional viewpoint is not a good way to earn respect on a debate forum.

Quite agreed.

[Dorsum Oppel]

Speaking as someone who bounces back and forth, I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

And here I come, pledging no allegiance.


Yes, and compared to agnosticism, you're making a positive claim of non-existence.

True enough.



That's good, but do remember there are many smug atheists who love to ridicule anyone who believes in a god of any kind.

But those are quite silly and most unnatractive traits in an athiest. It isn't fair, or reasonable for the OP to generalize/ make blanket statements.



It raises the philosophical question of what makes a person a person as opposed to a giant walking organic computer.

Defining the human essence and our clockwork reactions to our enviroment is quite the philosophical argument, but that's a far stretch bordering on a tangent in this topic. Pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.



Me too. :)

I'm a hickory sauce man myself.



How is it logical to take absence of proof (even though there is some evidence) as proof of absence? There is some debatable evidence, but enough that, to me, any logical person would say it's worth of further investigation.

The greatest vice of human reasoning is tailoring our evidence to fit our conclusions, and not out conclusions to fit our evidence.


It explains the formation of this universe, if not the exact origin. (ie. it goes back to the instant before the explosion, but no further.)

Are we discussing the existence of diety, or the origins of the universe?


And what about personal searching?

Fair enough as long as taken with a dose of salt.

Paschal's wager is a valid concept, and one can safely assume that eternal paradise would be pleasant and that the concept has been poorly described.

Beyond me at the moment, I'll come back to this later.


Post script, the OP is debating like a douche bag.

[CaptainObvious]

Yes, and compared to agnosticism, you're making a positive claim of non-existence.

Untrue. I simply do not believe that God exists. I do not believe that God does not exist. See the different? An agnostic says "I do not know and so can neither not believe nor believe the proposition", whereas an atheist says "not knowing, I treat the proposition as any other and do not believe it until it is proven."

Although, of course, there are indeed atheists who make the positive claim of nonexistence.

[Sage]

Untrue. I simply do not believe that God exists. I do not believe that God does not exist.

Right. I might also add, by Sith's logic, that one could turn anything into a positive claim, thus getting them nowhere.

[Sith Lord 13]

Right. I might also add, by Sith's logic, that one could turn anything into a positive claim, thus getting them nowhere.

Any claim of knowledge, of existence or absence, is a positive claim. However, I think our core disagreement here, based on David's statement, is where we draw the line between atheist and agnostic. I have always held my understanding of the term atheist to mean one who believes god does not exist. If one recognizes the possibility, however small, of any form of deity existing, I have always seen them as agnostic.

I see it as having comparative burdens of proof. The religious person has the burden of proof when arguing against an atheist, and the atheist has the burden of proof when arguing against an agnostic.