Fed up of non believers

[s5gh]

All i was saying is that if you dont belive in anything (i was talking bout ghosts) then just dont be so nasty to others

[SnailyBoy]

All i was saying is that if you dont belive in anything (i was talking bout ghosts) then just dont be so nasty to others

 

Define 'nasty'

[mjw47]

Yes, that helped. Although I'm sure you believe all three teams exists. I suppose if you had no knowledge or awareness of one of those teams existing, you'd have an absence of belief. Same thing with god: if you have no knowledge or awareness of god's existence, you'd have an absence of belief; you'd be an agnostic atheist.

 

Let me have another go.

 

As an agnostic I believe that both theists and atheists are illogical none rational people.

 

Theist ; A believer in an intelligent creator, based upon what? There is no evidence to support such a supposition, therefore it is merely an opinion, to which they are of course welcome. Just leave me out of this guessing game which does not include a final proven conclusion.

 

Atheist ; A believer in the absence of any intelligent creator, based upon what? There is no evidence to support such a supposition, therefore it is merely an opinion, to which they are of course welcome.Just leave me out of a guessing game which will not include a final proven conclusion.

 

An agnostic is the only one of the three who exhibits any common sense whatsoever.

 

An agnostic is the only one who is actually dealing with facts and the truth as currently known.

 

Is there any proof of Gods existence? NO.

 

Is there any proof as to the none existence of God? NO.

 

The other two are guessing, and arriving at conclusions without evidence.

 

Agnostics believe that it is pointless to indulge in guessing with no possible chance of learning the truth.

 

Therefore, agnosticism = rational acceptance of reality.

 

Theists and atheists = think they know the unknowable, ergo, delusional.

 

Any clearer?

[SnailyBoy]

Let me have another go.

 

As an agnostic I believe that both theists and atheists are illogical none rational people.

 

Theist ; A believer in an intelligent creator, based upon what? There is no evidence to support such a supposition, therefore it is merely an opinion, to which they are of course welcome. Just leave me out of this guessing game which does not include a final proven conclusion.

 

Atheist ; A believer in the absence of any intelligent creator, based upon what? There is no evidence to support such a supposition, therefore it is merely an opinion, to which they are of course welcome.Just leave me out of a guessing game which will not include a final proven conclusion.

 

An agnostic is the only one of the three who exhibits any common sense whatsoever.

 

An agnostic is the only one who is actually dealing with facts and the truth as currently known.

 

Is there any proof of Gods existence? NO.

 

Is there any proof as to the none existence of God? NO.

 

The other two are guessing, and arriving at conclusions without evidence.

 

Agnostics believe that it is pointless to indulge in guessing with no possible chance of learning the truth.

 

Therefore, agnosticism = rational acceptance of reality.

 

Theists and atheists = think they know the unknowable, ergo, delusional.

 

Any clearer?

 

I reckon 8/10 for effort, lost points for 'none' instead of 'non'.

[mjw47]

I reckon 8/10 for effort, lost points for 'none' instead of 'non'.

 

Ah, the picking up of non important errors, the mark of a small mind and the clutching at straws of someone with no answers.

 

Only to be expected from a nondescript non compos mentis nonentity such as you.

 

 

Did you see what I did there?

[Ryedo40]

Atheist ; A believer in the absence of any intelligent creator, based upon what? There is no evidence to support such a supposition, therefore it is merely an opinion, to which they are of course welcome.Just leave me out of a guessing game which will not include a final proven conclusion.

 

There you go again insisting that atheism is a belief. Atheism is the absence of a belief. What part of that do you find difficult to understand?

 

An agnostic is the only one who is actually dealing with facts and the truth as currently known.

 

Is there any proof of Gods existence? NO.

 

Is there any proof as to the none existence of God? NO.

 

I'm an atheist and I agree with your two statements above. So your premise that agnostics are the only ones dealing with facts, etc is wrong.

 

The other two are guessing, and arriving at conclusions without evidence.

 

Again, you are showing you have a very simplistic or poor understanding of atheism. I'm an atheist and I'm not guessing or making any conclusions concerning the existence or non-existence of god. I have an absence of belief precisely because I have no knowledge of an actual god.

 

Agnostics believe that it is pointless to indulge in guessing with no possible chance of learning the truth.

 

I would agree although when agnostics make the above claim, I'd suggest they are guessing there is no possible chance of learning the truth.

[staninoodle]

For me asking if i believe in a god is similar to asking if i believe in fairies.

The vatican has loads of factual evidence that its refused to release for centuries,makes you wonder why?

God was imposed upon the masses as means of control,but we have gradually outgrown state control mechanisms.

The notion of a supreme bieng or gods are mostly laughable in current times with massive holes bieng attacked in the bible and its viewed mostly as some ancient story book that has little substance due to its various alterations.

[ivanava]

Let me have another go.

 

As an agnostic I believe that both theists and atheists are illogical none rational people.

 

Theist ; A believer in an intelligent creator, based upon what? There is no evidence to support such a supposition, therefore it is merely an opinion, to which they are of course welcome. Just leave me out of this guessing game which does not include a final proven conclusion.

 

Atheist ; A believer in the absence of any intelligent creator, based upon what? There is no evidence to support such a supposition, therefore it is merely an opinion, to which they are of course welcome.Just leave me out of a guessing game which will not include a final proven conclusion.

 

An agnostic is the only one of the three who exhibits any common sense whatsoever.

 

An agnostic is the only one who is actually dealing with facts and the truth as currently known.

 

Is there any proof of Gods existence? NO.

 

Is there any proof as to the none existence of God? NO.

 

The other two are guessing, and arriving at conclusions without evidence.

 

Agnostics believe that it is pointless to indulge in guessing with no possible chance of learning the truth.

 

Therefore, agnosticism = rational acceptance of reality.

 

Theists and atheists = think they know the unknowable, ergo, delusional.

 

Any clearer?

 

I'm sorry to disappoint you but your definition of agnostic is the least logical position to take, you are the ostrich with your head buried in the sand because you don't want to make a decision either way.

 

If there is no evidence that there is a non corporeal monkey sat on your shoulders, it is extremely likely that there isn't a non corporeal money sat on your shoulders. If someone claims that there is one sat on their shoulders, its simply not logical for everyone else to believe them, the logical stance is that they are a little mad because such a thing is extremely unlikely. If you hold the position that there might be one it would make you just as mad.

[mjw47]

I'm sorry to disappoint you but your definition of agnostic is the least logical position to take, you are the ostrich with your head buried in the sand because you don't want to make a decision either way.

 

If there is no evidence that there is a non corporeal monkey sat on your shoulders, it is extremely likely that there isn't a non corporeal money sat on your shoulders. If someone claims that there is one sat on their shoulders, its simply not logical for everyone else to believe them, the logical stance is that they are a little mad because such a thing is extremely unlikely. If you hold the position that there might be one it would make you just as mad.

 

As you are just about the least logical poster out of a whole bunch of them on here, my point is validated.

 

You are the one who 'knows' that there is no God, are you not?

 

How?

 

As no one is claiming such nonsense as you quote above, and as some highly intelligent people are convinced as to the merits of both arguments and as both cannot be correct, then the LOGICAL stance to take is abstention.

 

That then leads automatically to both disinterest and uninterest in the subject, understand?

[ivanava]

As you are just about the least logical poster out of a whole bunch of them on here, my point is validated.

 

You are the one who 'knows' that there is no God, are you not?

 

How?

 

As no one is claiming such nonsense as you quote above, and as some highly intelligent people are convinced as to the merits of both arguments and as both cannot be correct, then the LOGICAL stance to take is abstention.

 

That then leads automatically to both disinterest and uninterest in the subject, understand?

 

God isn't possible therefor it doesn't exist, you could of cause redefine God to make it possible, but then would it really be a God or just your personal idea of what a God is.

 

I take it that you do think its possible that we all have non corporeal monkeys sat on our shoulders.

 

You also haven't abstained you have committed yourself to the belief that nothing is knowable about God, and to form that opinion you must have decided what attributes a God must have.

Edited March 16, 2014 by ivanava