Perhaps the most common argument for agnositicism is that science can't explain everything we observe ergo atheism is merely another form of belief.

1.) Historically science has done nothing but explain the unexplainable, the once divine. We have no logical premise to expect this to stop; far from it - the rate of scientific advancements being made is increasing.

2.) Assuming an intelligent - intelligent designer it is logical that it would use a single system to govern our universe. As we have proved beyond concievable doubt that science can define and predict parts of this system there is no reason to doubt science will, eventually, have an answer to the other parts of the system.

The definition of being agnostic is a fence sitter. There might or might not be a god. Yet aren't the mounting contradictions between science and spiritualist claims proof that a god is 99.9% out of the picture? Would you consider a man smart for betting against those odds?

Therefore I ask agnostics: are you sure you're not atheists that believe in a higher power? Because believing that you're not the biggest fish in the pond is not neccessarily the same as believing in god.

Ant atheism for example - they don't believe in god, but they're sure as hell sure we're out there!

arx_

I remember that Pascale Wager piece where he said, you need to choose because, you have alread embarked. The agnostic will reflect his actions accordingly to how life treats him/her.

Perhaps the most common argument for agnositicism is that science can't explain everything we observe ergo atheism is merely another form of belief.




I think OP is missing the point. Agnosticism--at least as defined by the guy who coined the term, simply posits that God, by definition, is not knowable.

Now as a mystic, a shaman, a psychic yadda yadda, I am rabidly theistic--pantheistic, actually--but I have to sort of agree with the original definition.

God is infinite; our powers of perception are finite. Thus, it is quite arguable that it is not possible to grok God in fullness.

However, it does NOT follow from that, that unity consciousness--the highest state of being--is not achievable.

Agnostitcism is the only logical position on it. What happens to dead men? Only dead men know. The only thing I, or anyone else can do, is speculate.

Science will never explain time and space. What was the beginning? (a guess without something being eternal/magically appearing).

People talk about the odds of it happening, with the conditions already there. Screw that, how did the space in wich the universe is floating in get here? There either is no beginning, or something came from nothing. It will never make sense to man. I can only make sense of human life, from what I see in nature, and assume what my purpose is from that.

Agnostitcism is the only logical position on it. What happens to dead men? Only dead men know. The only thing I, or anyone else can do, is speculate.

.

I must disagree to an extant , since many of us remember past lives.

I must disagree to an extant , since many of us remember past lives.

Well, I must disagree with that to an extent, since you cannot know your own memories to be true.

ArmsMerchant I take everything you say with a pail of salt; and even more mirth.

It will never make sense to man.

You really think so? I wonder how many people said that about other things only to be... dissapointed... by science.

I can only make sense of human life, from what I see in nature, and assume what my purpose is from that.

What a long winded way to say survival.

arx_

Really depends upon which god your talking about...

If you define a God well enough (giving him contradictory omni abilities, for example) then clearly there is an argument that god cannot exist as you have supposed.

Most religions define a God well enough to prove that the particular deity cannot exist. If you believe in an undefined abstract thing you call God.....then no that cannot be disproven, but what is the usefullness of such a belief anyway?

Yes, I contend that everything is possible, everyone pretty much has to. Until you prove that this possibility has occured..........it did not. Plain and simple. We ALL practice this, and people are not TRULY agnostic.

To be agnostic you would have to agnostic on everything. You probably would not get out of bed, b/c there is a very real possiblity that a monster waits under there and as soon as your foot touches the floor, your a fucking greasespot.........so clearly an agnostic feels more strongly that there does not exist this POSSIBLE threat, if you should happen to see one not in his bed.

He is no longer an agnostic. He is now a non-believer in monsters under the bed. He can still believe in the possiblity of monsters being under there, but clearly does not himself put any real stock in that belief, making it pointless.

I think that agnosticism is the only reasonable stance. One cannot know for sure. Having said that, I do not consider it at all likely that there is a god, and I live as if there is not one, because i think that that is where all logical reasoning points. I'm 99.5% Atheist, but the other 0.05% can't be absolutely certain.

I'm 99.5% Atheist, but the other 0.05% can't be absolutely certain.

so whats the very last 0.45%? :D

so whats the very last 0.45%? :D

Christ, I'm stupid.

Personally, I think the "most logical" choice out of agnosticism, atheism, and theism, would depend entirely on the opinions of the observer.

That said, considering the opinion that you ultimately cannot know either way, agnostics would appear to be the most logical.

A very extreme version of this would be solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism), in which "knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist."

I live as if there is not one

What does that mean?
Is that really so different from living as if there was one?
Not the strickt judeo-christian God with all those silly rules and requirements, but just a creative energy/force.
Thats what I call God.
You can't live without it.
But you can live without acknowledging that it's really there.

There are rules to the Universe of course, you can play by them and advance, or you can break them and degrade. It's not like if you are gay, you go to HELL.
Its more like a pendulum: We are constantly craving pleasant things, and avoiding unpleasant things. We'll be happy with a new car, after we eat this expensive dinner, when I move into my new house, etc... We desire to look good and satisfy our lusts. This pursuit of unending pleasure is blindness to the truth.
Life contains pleasure, and life contains pain. This is the truth. And yet, we never accept this. We do everything we can to avoid seeing it. We continue to feed our desires and fill ourselves with pleasure.


It is evident that if our attitude towards daily life is fundamentally mistaken, if we believe that everything must turn out well, just because it should be so, then we are going to be disappointed...

People want things to turn out well "just because it should be so," because everything must go according to their plans. However, the crude reality is different. As long as one does not change internally, whether one likes it or not, one will always be a victim of circumstances.
- Samael Aun Weor, Revolutionary Psychology

We ignore the facts. We ignore our own psychology. We do not see what is really happening inside of our minds and hearts. And we choose this, because we are always chasing after "the good life" and we cannot stand the taste of the bitter truth. We habitually seek to avoid the unpleasant and seek the pleasant things. So we avoid what is unpleasant about ourselves, and we focus 100% on what we like, what tastes good to us.
http://www.gnosticteachings.org/content/view/39/66/
This is the habit of our minds. We have a very limited way of perceiving life, and it is entirely based on what is most convenient to our sense of self.

We refuse to see anything that questions our sense of self.

It begins to control, it becomes a habit, a habit of ignorance. We look at life through this filter we've created. And we are so used to viewing reality this way that we don't realize that this filter is warped, twisted, and flawed. It causes unbalance.


A person is what his life is... Looking at this matter from a strictly psychological point of view, any day in our life is really a tiny replica of the totality of our life. From this we may infer the following: if a person does not work on himself today, he will never change. When someone claims that he wants to work on himself, and he does not do it today, postponing it until tomorrow, such a claim will be a simple scheme, and nothing more, because within today is the replica of our entire life.... This is very similar to a certain sign that some merchants put in their stores: "Today, no credit, but tomorrow, yes. - Samael Aun Weor, Revolutionary Psychology

When you play by the rules of the Universe, you can become the master of your reality.

This reply started out small, but then I got off topic and started rambling on about the rules of the Universe. *sigh*
This probably wasn't the right thread to post this in, but whatever, it's to late to delete it all now.

Again, there exists a possibility for ANYTHING, and I do mean ANYFUCKINGTHING.

Some people give credit to things that have evidence, or proof, or some measure of reality. (enter atheist)

Some people give credit to certian possibilities in the universe that have some measure of comfort or benefit to themselves no matter how outlandish it may be (enter theist).

Some people are unable to decide on certian aspects of fantasy and reality and ride the fence on the issue (enter agnostic)

Again, there exists a possibility for ANYTHING, and I do mean ANYFUCKINGTHING.

Some people give credit to things that have evidence, or proof, or some measure of reality. (enter atheist)

Some people give credit to certian possibilities in the universe that have some measure of comfort or benefit to themselves no matter how outlandish it may be (enter theist).

Some people are unable to decide on certian aspects of fantasy and reality and ride the fence on the issue (enter agnostic)

I would like to replace, your word of "reality" with "physicality."

I would like to replace, your words of "Comfort" and "Benefit to themselves" with "possibilities" and "individual development," oh and your word of "outlandish" with "within the realm of possibilities."

And as for the agnostic, unable to come to an agreement on whether or not one side is true over the other, hence why I said when it comes to interpersonal discussions of the matter we must be agnostic to the matter.

Again, there exists a possibility for ANYTHING, and I do mean ANYFUCKINGTHING.

Some people give credit to things that have evidence, or proof, or some measure of reality. (enter atheist)

Some people give credit to certian possibilities in the universe that have some measure of comfort or benefit to themselves no matter how outlandish it may be (enter theist).

Some people are unable to decide on certian aspects of fantasy and reality and ride the fence on the issue (enter agnostic)

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

I would like to replace, your word of "reality" with "physicality."

I would like to replace, your words of "Comfort" and "Benefit to themselves" with "possibilities" and "individual development," oh and your word of "outlandish" with "within the realm of possibilities."

And as for the agnostic, unable to come to an agreement on whether or not one side is true over the other, hence why I said when it comes to interpersonal discussions of the matter we must be agnostic to the matter.

I imagine you would like to replace some words here or there to redefine my position...

Perhaps you could argue for your own position or against mine if you disagree, but editing out parts you dont like or disagree with, just comes natural?

Yes, I contend that everything is possible, everyone pretty much has to. Until you prove that this possibility has occured..........it did not. Plain and simple.

Hey, how did everything come to be?

Or did it not?

I think that agnosticism is the only reasonable stance. One cannot know for sure. Having said that, I do not consider it at all likely that there is a god,

You are an atheist

Said, considering the opinion that you ultimately cannot know either way, agnostics would appear to be the most logical.

Not true. Ultimately you cannot know if there is an invisible fairy floating above you. It is, however, logical to believe that there isn't one there. Why is it logical to believe that? Because theres no evidence to prove it is there!


Most agnostics are actually what is known as a weak atheist, they just don't know it yet.

A weak atheist is one who believes that the chance that god does not exist is higher than the chance that he does exist.

There is also no reason to believe anything without proof. If you're not sure of something, then you don't believe in it.

I don't believe the OP has a 15inch cock, I don't believe there are monsters under my bed, and I don't believe god exists. I don't know for sure if any of those things are true, so I will continue to disbelieve in them until proven otherwise.

I can't explain to you how the universe was created. I agree with the agnostics in this thread, we probably won't ever be able to explain it.

Being an atheist isn't about decisively "knowing" that god does not exist and its not about explaining how the world was created through science.

Its about not believing that god exists.


Broken down, nice and simple for the agnostics:

I can not be sure god exists.

I can not be sure god does not exists.

I admit it is possible that god exists.

Right now, I see no evidence that god exists.

When there is evidence, I will believe in god

Until there is evidence, I will not believe in god

Its just that simple

Most agnostics are really atheists who don't understand the fine line between the two

To add to my above post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism


Many self-described agnostics distinguish their stance from that of "strong atheists", and often attempt to avoid the label of "atheist" altogether, yet they would also fit the definition of "weak atheist." They would categorise themselves simply as agnostic due to a common misconception that atheism means a denial of gods.



I found this sumbleupon, just now. This is the perfect article for this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_Theistic_Probability

many people who have passionately described themselves as agnostics were in fact atheists.


It annoys me when people claim they are of one religion, when really they are not.

Well hopefully I made a couple of "agnostics" into atheists today, or at least made you realize you were an atheist all along.

I think its natural for the progression from the childhood indoctrination of christianity to atheism to have a brief period of agnosticism in the middle there.

Out of curiosity, what is your age (if you are agnostic)? It seems the most common age group for agnostics is 12-18 when you first start really thinking for yourself. I never met anyone over than you claimed they were agnostic.

Agnosticism as a title is meaningless. Working literally with what the word means, Christians are Agnostics just as much as fence-sitters are. This fact is demonstrated by the idea of 'faith'. If a Christian were to know that God existed, faith would cease to be necessary and their religion would die (which would be quite lovely).

How the word is used, however, is mostly people who are irreligious touting superior ground to the Atheist because they 'don't believe one way or the other; don't entertain any faiths'. Well yes you do, young Agnostics-- If you consider "There is no God" to be a faith statement, then so do you consider EVERY positive statement. The statement of God's inexistence is just as probable as the statement that flying pink unicorns do not exist. The improbable of existence is so great that the positive assertion of inexistence is just as reasonable to make as basic positive assertions like "I think."

Beyond this, Agnosticism is stupid in the way that the poster described. It IS knowable whether or not God exists. If, for instance, he suddenly appeared to everyone in the world in the sky and spoke to us if his existence, then we could all agree that we then had knowledge of God's existence. This means that saying that God is unknowable is flat-out wrong. This isn't the stance of Agnostics, though, their stance is that right now, God is unknowable--that at this present moment no one has exact knowledge of whether or not God exists. This argument is superfluous, however, because of probability.

Not true. Ultimately you cannot know if there is an invisible fairy floating above you. It is, however, logical to believe that there isn't one there. Why is it logical to believe that? Because theres no evidence to prove it is there!

Its 'logical' because you make the assumptions that your senses are accurate and that you expereince complete truth.

Just as believing in the Christian God is 'logical' to a Christian, because they assume the bible is true.

To an agnostic, it is illogical to pretend you know either way.

To an agnostic, it is illogical to pretend you know either way.

atheism isn't about knowing god doesn't exists.

god damn, you're fucking stupid

you miss my point.

you miss my point.

it was a piss poor point

I could make the point that we are actually all the matrix, and while I may be correct, no one is going to take it seriously because its stupid.

... no one is going to take it seriously because its stupid.

Why does that matter?

Until you prove that this possibility has occured..........it did not.
Ultimately you cannot know if there is an invisible fairy floating above you. It is, however, logical to believe that there isn't one there. Why is it logical to believe that? Because theres no evidence to prove it is there!

Where is the evidence for these assertions?

Until evidence is provided, this position is philosophically incoherent.

Yet aren't the mounting contradictions between science and spiritualist claims proof that a god is 99.9% out of the picture?
I do not consider it at all likely that there is a god, and I live as if there is not one, because i think that that is where all logical reasoning points. I'm 99.5% Atheist, but the other 0.05% can't be absolutely certain.

Some people give credit to certian possibilities in the universe that have some measure of comfort or benefit to themselves no matter how outlandish it may be (enter theist).
The statement of God's inexistence is just as probable as the statement that flying pink unicorns do not exist. The improbable of existence is so great that the positive assertion of inexistence is just as reasonable to make as basic positive assertions like "I think."

How did any of you manage to calculate the possibilities you are asserting?

I can't think of any experiment that can be performed or mathematical calculation that can be computed that will give an answer to the question of how probable the existence of God is. So how did you do it?

To be agnostic you would have to agnostic on everything.
If you consider "There is no God" to be a faith statement, then so do you consider EVERY positive statement.

Really? Why is this?

Until evidence is provided, this position is philosophically incoherent.


Where is the evidence for that assertion?

Until evidence is provided, this position is philosophically incoherent.

Until evidence is provided, this position is philosophically incoherent.

Where is the evidence for these assertions?

Until evidence is provided, this position is philosophically incoherent

Yes, I contend that everything is possible, everyone pretty much has to. Until you prove that this possibility has occured..........it did not. Plain and simple.

Hey, how did everything come to be?

Or did it not?

Where is the evidence for that assertion?

Until evidence is provided, this position is philosophically incoherent.
Where is the evidence for these assertions?

Until evidence is provided, this position is philosophically incoherent

1. My statement, "Until evidence is provided, this position [that possibilities that have not been evidenced are false or illogical] is philosophically incoherent." is not philosophically incoherent if it is not evidenced. It is unjustified, which is completely different, and it went unjustified because I made the assumption you would have knowledge of the meaning of the phrase "philosophically incoherent", or would at least have the intelligence to gain that knowledge before replying, and I assumed that this knowledge would allow you to see it as true by definition.

2. If, when you use the phrase "philosophically incoherent", what you actually intended to mean is "false"/"illogical" (in reference to your own epistemological position), then it is only really necessary for me to evidence my claim if your claim is not actually incoherent, and so to make this demand is the logical fallacy of begging the question. Nevertheless, since the evidence is so simple, I will provide a justification anyway, just to get things back on track:

If all claims that have not been evidenced are false or illogical, then that claim must itself be evidenced else it is self-condemned as false or illogical and so falls apart (ie. it is philosophically incoherent).

Now, stop avoiding the question and either provide proof for your assertion, or admit that you were mistaken.

Fallinghouse,


1) It takes no mathematical computation to understand that the probability of the existence of something for which there is no physical evidence whatsoever is equivalent to the probability of something else for which there is no physical evidence whatsoever. For instance, I don't need to write a mathematical formula proving that the probability of an invisible weed smoking pandas who orbit the Earth is the same as the probability that there is an invisible magical dragon who sits in my closet. To suggest to me that I need to demonstrate such with a formula is absurd--and I would expect that any rational human being could understand this.


2) I suppose this one did need a little clarification, though if you were a critical thinker or had been exposed to any philosophy then you wouldn't have needed it. Take, for instance, the statement "I think," which is the classic statement of absoute certainty. Even this is not something of which we can be absolutely certain, because when confronted with it, unanswerable questions arise, such as: that it is really I who am doing the thinking, that there must be something that things at all, that thinking is an operation of something, namely I, that is thought of as a cause, that there is an I at all, and that we I already know what is designated by the word "Think." Literally every positive statement falls victim to these assertions, which is why it's ridiculous to say "It is foolish to claim, positively, that God doesn't exist." This is reductio ad absurdum. The positive claim of God's inexistence is perfectly reasonable when confronted with probabilities.

I'm thinking when you asked 1, you were alluding to why we think God is improbable at all though and so I will proceed to explain it to you...

We are confronted with two alternatives for the origin of life: creation by an intelligent designer and evolution. They seem, at first observation by a person of little critical reasoning capacity, to be equally improbable because they make the jump from non-living to what there is today. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Creation by intelligent design involves one sweeping event from whence complex organisms are created: there is nothing and then Voila! there are men, trees, elephants, etc. When looking at this alternative, you're faced with the problem of infinite regress, which is fallacious. You know, the old, "If God created us, then who created him" thing. The other alternative, which is evolution, involves not nearly so broad a change as from nothing to the present because it involves INCREDIBLY slow variance. Once genetic material came about because a atoms had come after a long time of coming together and not forming anything to eventually forming proteins, then natural selection took place and over the course of millions of years and a ridiculously huge number of mutations (the vast majority of which were failures), we got to where we are now. The point is that the incrementalism offered by evolution is a much more probable explanation for the our origins, and the origin of life in general, because:
1) It doesn't go to infinite regress, and
2) Because the mutations are minute and occur over a huge period of time, eventually coming to where we are now, rather than happening spontaneously


---I really hope this answered your questions sufficiently. If it didn't and truly don't understand something I'd be happy to work on it with you.

Ultimately you cannot know if there is an invisible fairy floating above you. It is, however, logical to believe that there isn't one there. Why is it logical to believe that? Because theres no evidence to prove it is there!

Where is the evidence for these assertions?

Until evidence is provided, this position is philosophically incoherent.

Fine, you want proof.

Answer these questions for me:


Do you know for sure if there is an invisible fairy floating above you?
Is there evidence to prove there is one there?
Is it logical to believe something that doesn't have evidence?

1) It takes no mathematical computation to understand that the probability of the existence of something for which there is no physical evidence whatsoever is equivalent to the probability of something else for which there is no physical evidence whatsoever. For instance, I don't need to write a mathematical formula proving that the probability of an invisible weed smoking pandas who orbit the Earth is the same as the probability that there is an invisible magical dragon who sits in my closet.

So, your argument is:

Premise 1: There is no evidence for the existence of invisible pandas
Premise 2: There is no evidence for the existence of invisible dragons
Conclusion: The probability of the existence of invisible dragons is equal to the probability of the existence of invisible pandas.

Allow me to demonstrate that this is logically invalid.

Since the existence of invisible dragons and the existence of invisible pandas have unknown probabilities, then:
1) The probability of the existence of invisible dragons is somewhere between 0% and 100%
2) The probability of the existence of invisible pandas is somewhere between 0% and 100%

Hence, it is possible that the probability of the existence of invisible dragons is 2% and the probability of the existence of invisible pandas is 1%, in which case they do not have equal probabilities, in which case your assertion is wrong. Hence the truth of your premises does not guarantee the truth of your conclusion, so your argument is logically invalid.

The same problem will appear every time you make a claim about the equality of two unknown probabilities. In other words, if you have two unknown values 'x' and 'y', x=y is not guaranteed (in fact, it is almost always false).

Literally every positive statement falls victim to these assertions, which is why it's ridiculous to say "It is foolish to claim, positively, that God doesn't exist." This is reductio ad absurdum. The positive claim of God's inexistence is perfectly reasonable when confronted with probabilities.

You appear to be saying that since nothing is really absolutely certain, then to say something is not certain is ridiculous. This seems to me to be an obvious non-sequitor.

Even if I ignore that glaring hole, when someone says "It is foolish to claim, positively, that God doesn't exist", they are speaking in a context in which the notion that all things are ultimately uncertain is ignored. Hence, when they make that statement, they are saying that the claim 'God doesn't exist' is not guaranteed to follow from the assumptions that are taken to be absolutely true for the purpose of allowing discussion, ie. the laws of logic, findings of science etc...

We are confronted with two alternatives for the origin of life: creation by an intelligent designer and evolution.

Several religions have no problem with the theory of evolution, so even if evolution is more probable then creationism, then this only effects the probability of a subset of asserted Gods.

The point is that the incrementalism offered by evolution is a much more probable explanation for the our origins, and the origin of life in general, because:
1) It doesn't go to infinite regress, and


If we are talking about the complete origin of life, then evolution is only one part of the scientific explanation. What I mean is, evolution doesn't describe how the planet earth came to take the form it does, for that you need to bring in theories of planetary formation. And from there you need to bring in theories of galactic formation and eventually you need to bring in a theory about the origin of matter. So you see, a non-theistic explanation also suffers from the infinite regress, effectively balancing out the effect of the infinite regress on the probability of the existence of God.

Furthermore, even if infinite regress did only come into play for theists, you have failed to demonstrate that it lowers the probability of existence at all.

2) Because the mutations are minute and occur over a huge period of time, eventually coming to where we are now, rather than happening spontaneously

How did you determine that a long chain of small changes is more probable than a single large change?

I can't think of any experiment that can be performed or mathematical calculation that can be computed that could have told you this. So how do you know it?

Fine, you want proof.

Answer these questions for me:

Do you know for sure if there is an invisible fairy floating above you? I don't think so.

Is there evidence to prove there is one there? Not that I know of.

Is it logical to believe something that doesn't have evidence? I don't know.

You made the claim that the answer to the third question is no. This answer requires evidence or else it is incoherent, so I'm asking you for the third time now, please provide this evidence.

This thread feels like a summer rerun ...

I'm agnostic because I don't give a shit whether there's a god or not. Is that logical? Who fucking cares?

Do you know for sure if there is an invisible fairy floating above you? I don't think so.

Is there evidence to prove there is one there? Not that I know of.

Is it logical to believe something that doesn't have evidence? I don't know.

You made the claim that the answer to the third question is no. This answer requires evidence or else it is incoherent, so I'm asking you for the third time now, please provide this evidence.

You want me to prove that it is not logical to believe something unless there is evidence?

I'll try my best

We must assume the following three premises to be true:
If there is evidence for it, then it exists
If it exists, then you should believe it
If it does not exist, you should not believe it

Here is my proof:
http://i28.tinypic.com/2uxzmeu.jpg

The conclusion I reached is:
"If it is not the case that there is evidence for it, then it is not the case that you should believe it."

The only way my argument is invalid is if one or more of my premises is invalid.

If you believe one or more of my premises is invalid, the you believe one or more of the following things to be true:

If there is evidence for it, then it does not exist
If it exists, then you should not believe it
If it does not exist, you should believe it

Do you hold any of these to be true?

I'm agnostic because I don't give a shit whether there's a god or not. Is that logical? Who fucking cares?

That is known as Apatheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism)

Also referred to as apathetic agnosticism and practical atheism

Fallinghouse engages in what I term philosophical bullshittery...

If you follow him far enough down the rabbit hole he will engage in infinite regress. Picture a child asking her father why the sky is blue. When given an answer the child responds "Why?" When given an answer to that, the same response is "Why?"

Ultimately you have to tell the child to shut the fuck up, b/c why can be asked after EVERY answer given.

Fallinghouse engages in what I term philosophical bullshittery...

If you follow him far enough down the rabbit hole he will engage in infinite regress. Picture a child asking her father why the sky is blue. When given an answer the child responds "Why?" When given an answer to that, the same response is "Why?"

Ultimately you have to tell the child to shut the fuck up, b/c why can be asked after EVERY answer given.

I am aware, but I'm still eager to know bullshittery he can follow my last post with.

I think I covered my bases pretty well. Never thought I would have to use that logic course I took first term.

You want me to prove that it is not logical to believe something unless there is evidence?

I'll try my best

We must assume the following three premises to be true:
If there is evidence for it, then it exists
If it exists, then you should believe it
If it does not exist, you should not believe it

Here is my proof:
http://i28.tinypic.com/2uxzmeu.jpg

The conclusion I reached is:
"If it is not the case that there is evidence for it, then it is not the case that you should believe it."

The only way my argument is invalid is if one or more of my premises is invalid.

If you believe one or more of my premises is invalid, the you believe one or more of the following things to be true:

If there is evidence for it, then it does not exist
If it exists, then you should not believe it
If it does not exist, you should believe it

Do you hold any of these to be true?

Your argument is as follows, correct?

p1. p ⊃ q
p2. q ⊃ r
p3. ~q ⊃ ~r

therefore: ~p ⊃ ~r

Consider the case where p is false, r is true and q is true.

In this case all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Hence your argument is logically invalid.

Furthermore, to say it is illogical to do x is not the same as saying that people should not do x.

Fallinghouse engages in what I term philosophical bullshittery...

If you follow him far enough down the rabbit hole he will engage in infinite regress. Picture a child asking her father why the sky is blue. When given an answer the child responds "Why?" When given an answer to that, the same response is "Why?"

Ultimately you have to tell the child to shut the fuck up, b/c why can be asked after EVERY answer given.

Forgive me if I'm not in the habit of taking dogmatic assertions as self-justified.

Your argument is as follows, correct?

p1. p ⊃ q
p2. q ⊃ r
p3. ~q ⊃ ~r

therefore: ~p ⊃ ~r

Consider the case where p is false, r is true and q is true.

In this case all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Hence your argument is logically invalid.

Furthermore, to say it is illogical to do x is not the same as saying that people should not do x.

Ah, I fucked up point 5

p ⊃ q
~p
∴ ~q

That doesn't make any sense. Modus ponens doesn't work like that.

Meh, its almost 3am. I'll find a rebuttal sometime tomorrow.

And hey, I never thought about looking up the html codes for the operators.

Posting these for future use:
∴ - 8756
⊃ - 8835
≡ - 8801

edit:
fallinghouse, what is your religious belief?

I am Jacks maniacal laughter.

Perhaps the most common argument for agnositicism is that science can't explain everything we observe ergo atheism is merely another form of belief.

no.

The most common argument is that since god transcends space/time/us/etc., we can not possibly prove/disprove his existence.

I'm an atheist.

Excuse me if I am wrong, but I do believe that the statements fallinghouse originally questioned were: (A) "until you prove that this possibility has occured..........it did not", and (B) "Ultimately you cannot know if there is an invisible fairy floating above you. It is, however, logical to believe that there isn't one there." Yet later in the discussion, Punk_Rocker_22 sneakily changes the statement to: "If it is not the case that there is evidence for it, then it is not the case that you should believe it". The former statements differ to the latter in that they say you should believe the object is not there (plus they are non sequiturs), whereas in the latter, the assertion is simply that you should not believe it is there, which does not mean that you automatically believe it is not there, because the statement also allows abstinence from judgment.

In this case all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Hence your argument is logically invalid.


I think this is relevant:

"Just because the results happen to be in agreement
with observation does not prove that one's
theory is correct" (Paul Dirac (http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm))

Excuse me if I am wrong, but I do believe that the statements fallinghouse originally questioned were: (A) "until you prove that this possibility has occured..........it did not", and (B) "Ultimately you cannot know if there is an invisible fairy floating above you. It is, however, logical to believe that there isn't one there." Yet later in the discussion, Punk_Rocker_22 sneakily changes the statement to: "If it is not the case that there is evidence for it, then it is not the case that you should believe it". The former statements differ to the latter in that they say you should believe the object is not there (plus they are non sequiturs), whereas in the latter, the assertion is simply that you should not believe it is there, which does not mean that you automatically believe it is not there, because the statement also allows abstinence from judgment.

I was under the impression that he was questioning:

"Why is it logical to believe that [the fairy is not there]? Because theres no evidence to prove it is there!"

But yea, my proof was wrong. I'll give him that.

I don't think I can prove that evidence should be a requirement for belief.

If you want to believe things that have no evidence, go right ahead.

Agnosticism is about not being able to know, not about a belief.

Although, I suppose you can only believe that you cannot know.

Couldnt agnosticism just be an "i dont care" approach to religious thought and lifes questions. Think about this way, an atheist obviously does care wether there is or is not a god, the atheist cares so much he has formed an opinion and says "there is no god." The agnostic says "I dont care, I dont Know" so this laxed position allows the agnostic to live life not caring about such beliefs and just lives life, regardless (a)theist or not isnt that what matters at the end of the day... Living life?

So which do you think is more logical, having the thought of not caring or caring only to end up having a belief that makes you not care (or for some atheist care so much that they try to convert a theist to atheism).

"You appear to be saying that since nothing is really absolutely certain, then to say something is not certain is ridiculous. This seems to me to be an obvious non-sequitor.

Even if I ignore that glaring hole, when someone says "It is foolish to claim, positively, that God doesn't exist", they are speaking in a context in which the notion that all things are ultimately uncertain is ignored. Hence, when they make that statement, they are saying that the claim 'God doesn't exist' is not guaranteed to follow from the assumptions that are taken to be absolutely true for the purpose of allowing discussion, ie. the laws of logic, findings of science etc..."

------I'm starting at your second point because your 1st contains an example for which to clarify a point in response to this...:

It is not non-sequitor at all, and I don't think you caught my point.
1) There are no absolute certainties.
2) Because there are no absolute certainties, we take things on the basis of their probability of truth and/or consensus on the matter, granted that the consensus is rationally conceivable.
3) The statement that "God doesn't exist." is so much more probable than the alternative that we may consider it true, just as we would a statement like, "There is a water glass in front of me."

To give you an example... If you and I both can act with our senses to know that we're sitting at a table together, we see the table, feel the chairs touching our behinds.... We may accept that we are in fact sitting at the table although it isn't an absolute certainty. We accept it because it is more probable than the alternative "We're not sitting at a table together" because we have evidence to substantiate that we are sitting together, but none to substantiate that we aren't sitting together.

I in NO WAY intended to say that nothing can be called uncertain because everything is uncertain, and I made this fairly clear by adding at the end of my discussion of absolute certainty: "The positive claim of God's inexistence is perfectly reasonable when confronted with probabilities."


"So, your argument is:

Premise 1: There is no evidence for the existence of invisible pandas
Premise 2: There is no evidence for the existence of invisible dragons
Conclusion: The probability of the existence of invisible dragons is equal to the probability of the existence of invisible pandas.

Allow me to demonstrate that this is logically invalid.

Since the existence of invisible dragons and the existence of invisible pandas have unknown probabilities, then:
1) The probability of the existence of invisible dragons is somewhere between 0% and 100%
2) The probability of the existence of invisible pandas is somewhere between 0% and 100%

Hence, it is possible that the probability of the existence of invisible dragons is 2% and the probability of the existence of invisible pandas is 1%, in which case they do not have equal probabilities, in which case your assertion is wrong. Hence the truth of your premises does not guarantee the truth of your conclusion, so your argument is logically invalid."

---Now, I placed this second because HERE is an example of real non-sequitor. When you say that the probability of existence is between 0% and 100%, you're
1) Leaving out information (which is a fallacy), and
2) Committing non-sequitor because you jump from "The outcome could be that it exists or that it doesn't, and we don't have any information to substantiate either claim, so the probability ranges from 0-100"

This is just wrong. There are two outcomes, and the two outcomes range from not existing (which you apparently assign 0% probability, which is weird because you're working backwards) and existing (which you treated as 100%). The thing is, both are infinitessimally small, so much that they can be called 0% probable! There is no reason to believe that anything extrasensory exists and we have no evidence to substantiate that the invisible dragons or invisible pandas (or invisible sky-fairy) exist whatsoever. In the absence of all evidence where there should be some, the probability is 0%.

When I see a bottle.. I look in it and see no water, I taste it and taste no water, I move the bottle vigorously and hear no splashing, I stick my finger in and feel nothing, what is the probability that there's 'invisible water' inside? Well, somewhere between 0% and 100%, right?

Okay, then I open a box.. I see nothing, taste nothing, feel nothing, hear nothing, and smell nothing in the box.... What is the probability that there's an invisible rabbit? Well, somewhere between 0% and 100% right?

Does it now follow (here's where you commited non-sequitor) that the probability are unequal because the first could be 4% and the second could be 6%? No, the probability are equivalent in that there is NO PROBABILITY, IE 0% chance, in both cases. You cannot assign a probability of anything greater than 0 to something which there's no evidence of whatsoever.

Consider a dice... I'm going to roll the dice.. There's a 1/6 probability that it lands on a 1, same for 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. So, I could say, "Well, there's a 1/6th chance (probability) that the dice will land on 3." There is evidence for us to assign a probability greater than 0%. There is something to base our measure on, whereas in the case of the invisible panda, the invisible dragon, and the invisible sky-fairy, there is none. The possible outcome for each of those is either exists or doesn't, but that doesn't mean it's fair to say that the probability is between 0% and 100%. If the probability of God's existence were 100%, that'd mean we knew that God existed---it'd be the equivalent of looking at a dice and seeing that every side had a 1 on it and saying the probability of rolling a 1 was 100%.

"What I mean is, evolution doesn't describe how the planet earth came to take the form it does, for that you need to bring in theories of planetary formation. And from there you need to bring in theories of galactic formation and eventually you need to bring in a theory about the origin of matter. So you see, a non-theistic explanation also suffers from the infinite regress, effectively balancing out the effect of the infinite regress on the probability of the existence of God."

All I can say about the regress of big bang theory, which is to say "Where did the singularity come from?" is that it is both fallacious and unfair for the theist to be able to proclaim victory or declare the subscription to faith in God follows from scientific ignorance on a subject. Science is falsifiable and ignorance is a GOOD thing in Science. Science is consistently pushing the boundaries of human information, and it thrives on the principle of falsifiability. We have a relatively strong understanding, verified by ample evidence, of what happened AFTER cosmic inflation began: the formation of galaxies and planets and the evolution of life.

What happened before is simply somewhere that we haven't yet been able to explore. However, there's a big difference in saying "As of yet, we don't know because we haven't been able to explore the idea and gather evidence to substantiate a hypothesis" is INCREDIBLY different from saying "Well, we don't know so it must've been God." And you'd be making another, similar, mistake of non-sequitor to say that "The proposition that God is the answer to where the singularity came from would be as probable as the proposition that there is some physical, natural explanation for the origin of the singularity."

In case you don't understand why that is, simply consider the fact that everything we've ever known or understood has been so through physical evidence. A metaphysical explanation has never before been found true, whereas physical explanations have always been the case. This is to say that every result so far in the experiment has been the same, so it's much more probable that it will be the same again than that it will be something different.

1) There are no absolute certainties.
2) Because there are no absolute certainties, we take things on the basis of their probability of truth and/or consensus on the matter, granted that the consensus is rationally conceivable.

If there are no certainties, then how do you manage to calculate an accurate probability of the truth of anything?

The statement that "God doesn't exist." is so much more probable than the alternative that we may consider it true

You still haven't justified this claim, which was my original request.

You asserted 2 judgements (I've put them below this paragraph) as proof that the probability that our universe is without a God is far higher than the possibility that there is a God, but you failed to justify that either make anything more or less probable and furthermore, you failed to show how one can avoid an infinite regress by dismissing the possibilities of Gods.

Your judgements:
1) It doesn't go to infinite regress [hence a non-theistic explanation is more likely], and
2) Because the mutations are minute and occur over a huge period of time, eventually coming to where we are now, rather than happening spontaneously[hence a non-theistic explanation is more likely]

You also seem to have forgotten about justifying your assertion that "If you consider "There is no God" to be a faith statement, then so do you consider EVERY positive statement."


Now, I placed this second because HERE is an example of real non-sequitor. When you say that the probability of existence is between 0% and 100%, you're...

In mathematics, the probability of every event has a value between 0 and 1 (in casual talk, between 0% and 100%). One can only be more specific if one has further information. You make the following claim in order to attempt to assert that some such information is known:

"You cannot assign a probability of anything greater than 0 to something which there's no evidence of whatsoever".

I request evidence for this claim. If no evidence can be provided, then it is self condemned to having 0 chance of being true, meaning it would be philosophically incoherent. And if this claim is incoherent, then it would appear that all of your arguments cease to function.

After this post I will deal only with this issue in replies to you, since I believe it to be the base of the dispute. Hopefully this will make replying less tedious.

There are two outcomes, and the two outcomes range from not existing (which you apparently assign 0% probability, which is weird because you're working backwards) and existing (which you treated as 100%).

I do not assign outcomes probabilities, I assign probabilities that outcomes will be satisfied by specific objects. I do not assign 'not existing' 0% probability, nor do I assign existing 100% probability.

All I can say about the regress of big bang theory, which is to say "Where did the singularity come from?" is that it is both fallacious and unfair for the theist to be able to proclaim victory or declare the subscription to faith in God follows from scientific ignorance on a subject...

I didn't claim that the infinite regress about the question of where the universe began is in any way a proof or sign of God's existence. I claimed that if the infinite regress makes something improbable, then it makes a non-theist explanation improbable in the same way it makes a theistic one improbable. And if you take an equal value from both sides of an equation, there is no relative change.

Furthermore, even if infinite regress did only come into play for theists, you have failed to demonstrate that it lowers the probability of existence at all.

I was under the impression that he was questioning:

"Why is it logical to believe that [the fairy is not there]? Because theres no evidence to prove it is there!"

He was, which is why I found it odd when, in the conversation, you shifted from that to this:

If it is not the case that there is evidence for it, then it is not the case that you should believe it.

Fallinghouse engages in what I term philosophical bullshittery...

If you follow him far enough down the rabbit hole he will engage in infinite regress. Picture a child asking her father why the sky is blue. When given an answer the child responds "Why?" When given an answer to that, the same response is "Why?"

Ultimately you have to tell the child to shut the fuck up, b/c why can be asked after EVERY answer given.

I had hoped you were wrong, but I now concur. However, there's a reason; he comes to a conclusion first and then attempts to find justification for his conclusion. If he can't think of any justification, he asks redundant questions ad nauseum, in an attempt to bring the alternative viewpoint to no greater than the standing of his own.

Hey, how did everything come to be?

Or did it not?

"It was like that when I got here!" - Homer Simpson.

I'm more or less just trolling, but can anyone answer this for me?

given that {(probability of god existing) = a/b}

what is a?
what is b?

If there is a chance for god to exist, there must be an "a" and a "b".

I had hoped you were wrong, but I now concur. However, there's a reason; he comes to a conclusion first and then attempts to find justification for his conclusion. If he can't think of any justification, he asks redundant questions ad nauseum, in an attempt to bring the alternative viewpoint to no greater than the standing of his own.

1. Since you are the one who made the original claim, then it is not up to me to find justification, it is up to you.

2. If all of your arguments rely on your claim that "You cannot assign a probability of anything greater than 0 to something which there's no evidence of whatsoever", then it is not redundant to request proof of this claim. In fact, since a lack of proof means your arguments all fall, then this request is the complete opposite of redundant.

Couldnt agnosticism just be an "i dont care" approach to religious thought and lifes questions.

Apathetic agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism)


the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.



the atheist cares so much he has formed an opinion and says "there is no god."


The only thing I believe is that what they believe is wrong

(or for some atheist care so much that they try to convert a theist to atheism).

We care because the religious twits are constantly trying to force us to obey their religious beliefs through the force of the government

See:
abortion
stem cell research
gay marriage
evolution in schools

If agnostics don't give a shit about religion either, then it is also in their best interest to promote the separation of church and state

He was, which is why I found it odd when, in the conversation, you shifted from that to this:

What I said was

"Why should you not believe it? Because there is no evidence for it"

That can be restated as:
"If there is no evidence for it, then you should not believe it"

That can be restated as:
"If it is not the case that there is evidence for it, then it is not the case that you should believe it."

What I said was

"Why should you not believe it? Because there is no evidence for it"

That is not true. What you originally said -- and I can and have quoted you on this -- is that if there is no evidence for something, you should believe it is not there. Later on in the discussion, you surreptitiously changed your position, and said that if there is no evidence for something, you should not believe it is there. As I have said before, the latter differs to the former in that it allows two alternates: not only the former, but also suspension of judgment.

Furthermore, I can prove, if I so wish, that fallinghouse originally questioned the former, and not the latter, with a simple screen grab. And although it may appear as if I am nitpicking, I think it is very important to keep in mind that it was the former statement that fallinghouse questioned in his initial post. For after all, that is the basis of the whole debate between you two, so to shift from the former statement to the latter practically creates an entirely new debate; and if this shift between statements is slipped in unnoticed, it can be said to be fallacious.

What I said was

"Why should you not believe it? Because there is no evidence for it"


That is not true.

What the fuck is wrong with you?


This is the original quote and exactly what he quoted:

Ultimately you cannot know if there is an invisible fairy floating above you. It is, however, logical to believe that there isn't one there. Why is it logical to believe that? Because theres no evidence to prove it is there!

It is logical to believe there isn't one there...because there is no evidence to prove it is there.

It is logical to believe there isn't one = It is not logical to believe there is one

If we assume that you should not believe something that is not logical to believe, then

It is not logical to believe there is one = You shouldn't believe there is one

Sorry if that confused you.

Further more, I admitted that he was correct and I was unable to prove him wrong. So I don't get why you're still on about this.

It is logical to believe there isn't one = It is not logical to believe there is one

They are not equivalent statements. The first statement says to believe the object is not there, to believe that it is actually absent. The second statement says not to believe that an object is actually present. From this it does not necessarily follow that you automatically believe that the object is absent, i.e. that you adhere to the first statement. For you can also abstain from judgment, which involves neither believing that the object is present, nor believing that the object is absent.

Agnosticism doesn't mean what you think it does, OP. It doesn't mean to believe partially in god, it means to believe it is impossible to know whether god exists or not.

I'd just like to say that I don't have anything to add to this thread really, but would like to add my two cents.

First, I really should come to this forum more often.

Second, reading many of your replies was very interesting, and showed me a number of different views on the universe as a whole, but through all that, and also because of it, my faith has only been reaffirmed.

My theology is a strange one. I am christian. I believe christ died for my sins, laugh all you want. But there are a number of differences between myself, and the classical bible thumper.

Many seem to dismiss science, in one way or another. To me, science is a way of getting closer to god. Enlightenment is pretty much understand everything, and what better way than science?


I'm not saying the meaning of life is lying at the bottom of a flask, but the more we explore our world and understand it, the closer we are to understanding He who created it all to begin with, and the more you understand Him, the closer to Him you are.

Now, the bible and all of it's stories are obviously debatable, but to me, God is archetypal. Your God is my God is his God is her God. All of the writing through out time has been about the same deity, but through a different perspective.


For me, it has nothing to do with WHY is all of this here? It's about why I am here. What is it that I should be doing, what could I be doing, what is the meaning of MY life.


And I've found that, taken control of it, and have now started on a path that I believe to be the right path for me. Since I've started on this path, life has unfolded for me, and I truly feel I am doing exactly what I was meant to do, for whatever reason He may have. I have never been so happy in my life.

And isn't that what faith is really all about? It's not about paying homage to the flying spaghetti monster in the sky, it's about coming to terms with your own problems and your own goals in life, and fixing those problems, and achieving those goals, whatever they may be. And just let the rest fall in place. Whether you call it leaving it in Gods hands, or you call it not sweating the small stuff.

The main point I have here is that people shouldn't worry so much about which perspective they see God from, but that you should simply try to understand that perspective as much as you can, and do your best with it to create the life you want.

I'm sorry, this isn't quite coming out right, I have a problem expressing abstract ideas sometimes.

... First, I really should come to this forum more often ...

Yes, you should!

I'm sorry, this isn't quite coming out right, I have a problem expressing abstract ideas sometimes.

Some things are hard to put into words.

If the world has no meaning, than what I am saying is meaningless... Including the suggestion "that the world has no meaning" than that itself has no meaning...

Meaning that.... I just wanted to through a curve ball at ya.... lets light up of such a concept... lol

I had hoped you were wrong, but I now concur. However, there's a reason; he comes to a conclusion first and then attempts to find justification for his conclusion. If he can't think of any justification, he asks redundant questions ad nauseum, in an attempt to bring the alternative viewpoint to no greater than the standing of his own.

I tried to warn you all.

He has engaged me in infinite regress the equivalent of a child asking why at the end of every answer. I skip over his posts, as I dont believe I have ever heard him assert his own thoughts or claims, just deconstruct others.

If you want to get abstract and bullshitty enough, you can deconstruct anything. Have fun.

I assert that agnostics are merely fence riders, for the sake of riding the fucking fence.

Whats it called when you just don't give a shit either way? I mean really. We're all doomed to die and do whatever happens after that... be it rot, go to heaven, be reincarnated or whatever... but really, I just don't really care. It'll happen when it happens and I take every day one day at a time.

I'm more worried about now, whats happening around me at the moment. Things that I know are real and are happening are happening all the time, and I find it a much better use of my time to take care of those issues than to spend it (especially Sundays), sitting on my ass wondering about whats going to happen when we all die (and EVERYTHING everyone thinks until a 100% proof positive answer is found is 100% made up and bullshit.)... I'd rather spend my time dealing with life, not wondering about death and all that shit.

In time though, I think people are going to more and more realize how hopeless the religious debate is to prove, and eventually we'll advance beyond superstitions, religions, and all that stupid shit. One day the majority of people will "get with it already" and realize that no one is going to save you from your sins, and that if there was a guy named Jesus on this earth, and if he did get nailed to a hunk of wood, I seriously doubt that anything devine became of it. He died in vain, because everyone back in the day was superstitious as all hell (witches anyone?).

Really its mind boggling that religion still thrives in todays world.

Anyways... you see why I said its better to not think about that shit anyways? We're all full of shit, and no one is ever going to get it right. Every way we live our lives is wrong one way or another because none of us are being saved, and none of us are special or unique. In the same context as Fight Club... we are all the same dying rotting matter.

Anyways... you see why I said its better to not think about that shit anyways? We're all full of shit, and no one is ever going to get it right. Every way we live our lives is wrong one way or another because none of us are being saved, and none of us are special or unique. In the same context as Fight Club... we are all the same dying rotting matter.

It does matter.

If every atheist/agnostic in the world were to sit back, and not "give a fuck", you would see the rise of theocracies again. Witches anyone?

If every atheist/agnostic in the world were to sit back, and not "give a fuck", you would see the rise of theocracies again.

Passivity FTL, for this very reason.

Passivity FTL, for this very reason.

I never said passive.

I never said passive.

But you implied it, with stating that you just didn't give a shit either way, it's better not to care, it's better not to think about it, and that people would eventually just "come around" someday and free themselves of the supernatural, mystical bullshit.

You didn't say it, but you sure promoted it.

But you implied it, with stating that you just didn't give a shit either way, it's better not to care, it's better not to think about it, and that people would eventually just "come around" someday and free themselves of the supernatural, mystical bullshit.

You didn't say it, but you sure promoted it.

That may be so... but either way, I still don't care. Life is too short.

I'm going to go back to the OP for a sec, if you guys don't mind:

If one defines God vaguely enough, usually just as something that exists outside this system we call the universe, then no, agnosticism is the only logical position. Can you prove invisible pandas exist outside our universe? One has no idea, and so I try not to preoccupy myself with such trivialities that ultimately don't concern me (and of which we don't know the probabilities; we can't even guess).

On the other hand, if a God is inside this system, as something that is operating within and is (more or less) bound by natural laws, then science will eventually discover it (many think we already have ;)). Until that time, we really have to reserve judgment on such a God the same way science reserves judgment on aliens. Are they there? We'll know when we find them. The odds that God exists in this realm are either 0 or 1, but we reserve judgment until we have found out. Same goes with aliens, etc.

The way I see it, God does not concern science, and so cannot be shown to exist empirically. It is thus unknowable.

I like the way Einstein put it, "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

1.) Historically science has done nothing but explain the unexplainable, the once divine.

No, historically Science has just produced theories relating to what people have observed. Science is the best we have, but it is not, as you appear to believe, ultimate truth. There could be any number of variables out there that we have not yet discovered, or cannot discover. We have no idea of the parameters of anything and all we can do is guess using what little evidence we have.

Therefore I would argue it is in fact the best option to be agnostic as any other opinion is based entirely on belief.

I like the way Einstein put it, "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Einstein was a jew.

Einstein was a jew.

You're a Jew.

Well, I must disagree with that to an extent, since you cannot know your own memories to be true.

God's sake you rape and dismember the word 'know' and 'knowledge' to an extent that is applicable to nothing.

God's sake you rape and dismember the word 'know' and 'knowledge' to an extent that is applicable to nothing.

I rape and dismember your mother.