| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
#989 to #986 - jewfrosdsd (08/12/2012) [-]
where are agnostics?
User avatar #1010 to #989 - noblexfenrir ONLINE (08/12/2012) [-]
Nowhere because agnosticism isn't a determination of belief only of knowledge. Most "agnostics" are atheists.
#1011 to #1010 - jewfrosdsd (08/12/2012) [-]
Though I do agree with science a lot more than religion, i honestly think its arrogant for you to think that YOU know exactly how the universe runs and if the universe had a creator or not. That is why i'm agnostic.
User avatar #1013 to #1011 - noblexfenrir ONLINE (08/12/2012) [-]
Do you believe in a god? I'm not asking if you are saying "I don't know", if you do not believe, you are an atheist. It's very simple.

And we don't know exactly how the universe runs, RELIGION claims that, science says "We don't know, let's find out". The reason we refute the existence of a god is because it is a claim by theists, which they cannot prove.
#1014 to #1013 - jewfrosdsd (08/12/2012) [-]
I think of this question as a box. if there is an item inside the box that you cannot see in, then god exists. But if there is no object then god doesn't exist. That box will NEVER open and for people saying that god exists or doesn't exist are fucking retards yelling at the box saying HERP DERP THERES A COIN IN DER. NOPE HERP DERP THERE IS NO COIN IN THER.
User avatar #1016 to #1014 - noblexfenrir ONLINE (08/12/2012) [-]
Actually I've gone over this many times with other people, you are using the Schrodinger's cat experiment to say there is a possibility of god which is very very flawed.

In Schrodinger's cat, both options (alive or dead) are equally plausible within the probability of the space provided.

However, a god is impossible to have a possibility through probability because he is given the wonderful attribute of creating the defined space. This means, that the only way for god to exist is if he exists, which means absolute evidence IS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to determine existence.
#1029 to #1016 - jewfrosdsd (08/13/2012) [-]
i agree the burden of proof is on christians but until scientists find the thing that started the universe i will stay agnostic.
#1046 to #1029 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (08/13/2012) [-]
User avatar #1031 to #1029 - noblexfenrir ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
Like I said though, agnostic isn't a thing. There is theist and atheist. If you do not believe in god then you are an atheist. That doesn't mean you believe in anything science says, it just means: I refute the existence of god with the evidence given to me, if new evidence is given my opinion can change.

#1066 to #1031 - jewfrosdsd (08/14/2012) [-]
I don't see strong enough evidence either way that is why i am agnostic.
User avatar #1068 to #1066 - noblexfenrir ONLINE (08/14/2012) [-]
..................THAT MEANS YOU'RE AN ATHEIST.

You don't believe in god because there isn't strong enough evidence, which means you are an atheist. Atheism isn't making a claim thus it doesn't require evidence. Please don't tell me you're one of those retards who thinks "You need to show me evidence god DOESN'T exist." because that is fucking retarded.
#999 to #989 - zilvox (08/12/2012) [-]
Kicking back in front of the TV
 Friends (0)