What you are describing, Ju, is Agnosticism not Atheism. Atheism is active belief that god doesn’t exist. If the concept of god is irrelevant to you then you fall into the agnostic camp.

There’s no distinction to be made. There’s simply no such thing as strong and weak atheism. Those are made up terms by atheists who aren’t comfortable with the true definition of atheism. Those terms are nothing more then a semantics game.

Dr. Craig said it best: “As a view there is no such thing as strong or weak atheism. Atheism is simply the view that

That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If you don’t think (1) is true, then you are not, by definition, an atheist.”

Yes, indifference would be considered agnostic. Ignorant isn’t a valid part of any view. Ignorance is ignorance. There is too much information out there to remain ignorance by any means other then choice. Once a person is introduced to a concept he/she can no longer claim ignorance.

There’s a difference between being shown a concept, and being shown it true, wouldn’t you agree? If I were to introduce to you the concept of karma, you can say you’ve “heard of it”, but are still ignorant of the details, whether it’s true…etc.

Yes, but god is a concept that is impossible to be proven true (at least currently). That’s why we rely on evidence. Atheism is the claim that there is no god/supernatural. That’s a claim to knowledge and as such carries with it a burden of proof. Atheists – for the most part – demand PROOF and refuse to acknowledge the EVIDENCE. That is the ignorance I’m referring to. The concept of god is well known. Its up to the individual to explore the evidence for both sides and make a decision. Atheists typically want to argue that there is no proof so they decide to remain conveniently ignorant of the evidence. That decision is a choice that keeps them ignorant and its the fallacy of negative proof.

If atheism, by your definition is “active”, what’s a “passive” belief that God doesn’t exist? I agree with Craig, that atheism, no matter what kind, have ONE thing in common. However, “weak & strong” are not merely semantics, they’re helpful in knowing a person’s approach & background.

I don’t mean active as in the opposite of passive, I just mean that it’s a belief – as in “being in a state of existence”. Atheists too often claim “lack of belief”, meaning they just don’t have a belief, or their belief is nonexistent. I’m arguing that “lack of belief”, “strong atheism”, “weak atheism”, etc. are misnomers. “Lack of belief” is a semantics games because it’s impossible to have a “lack of belief” once a person is introduced to a concept. Once a person is introduced to the idea of god and that person rejects that idea, he/she has activated their belief that god doesn’t exist. “Weak and strong atheism” is also semantics, because there aren’t different degrees of belief. Either one believs or one doesn’t. There is no middle ground (see my comments on belief below).

If one is a Christian, must he identify himself as a AZeusist? Or AVishnuist? Is Christianity an active belief that Zeus & Vishnu don’t exist? If so, do Christians have the burden of proof to show Zeus & Vishnu don’t exist, or else they must admit they’re AGNOSTIC, rather than AZeusist, Avishnuist?

You’ve got the wrong idea. Don’t confuse belief in god with religion. One can believe in god and not be religious. I don’t know much about those religions, but I would venture a guess that a Christian is agnostic when it comes to gods other then their own – or if they reject other gods and believe that they don’t exist then yes, they would be atheistic about all gods other then the one they worship. I would venture the same assumption about the religion surrounding Zeus or Vishnu.

This quote probably describes best

“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.”

I do like that quote, however, it’s often misapplied. Again, don’t confuse belief in god with religion. People who hold to a religious belief dismiss other gods because their religion dictates that they do. Should religions teach open mindedness rather then closed minded dogma then people of religious persuasions would be open to explore other possibilities. The same could be said of Atheism. If atheism stops teaching closed minded assertions that god doesn’t exist, then it would allow people to be free to believe in the possibility that the supernatural exists. This quote, from my perspective, better supports my argument then it does the atheist’s.

So, admin, how many Gods do you believe in? For every deity you disbelieve, deny, dismiss, are ignorant of, or believe does not exist (just covering every base), do you have proof they don’t exist? Or how do you justify your lack of belief in dieties such as Vishnu, Zeus, Odin, Isis..etc?

As I said earlier, to refuse to believe something that’s impossible to prove until proof is given is to remain ignorant by choice. Just because there is no proof for (a) doesn’t necessarily mean that (a) is false. If there were no proof for (a) one would simply need to consider the evidence. Demanding proof for something that is impossible to prove is a logical fallacy. So to answer your question, I weigh the evidence for a concept, whether it be for Zues, Vishnu, the FSM, or whatever, and make a decision. Should I come up empty or refuse to take the time to consider the evidence then I remain agnostic.

If you say “I don’t need to”, then you can’t say atheists need to defend their active disbelief. If you say “I believe in all Gods you can name”, I’ll leave you alone. If you say “I’m agnostic about all gods but my own”, then I can ask you “Do you believe Vishnu exists?”, would you adhere to “either you do or you don’t”?

I say that atheists need to defend their belief because they demand that theists defend their beliefs. Atheists are the ones who demand that people who think different from them prove their beliefs not the reverse which is why I call atheists to the task and try to show that atheists share the burden of proof. It’s not fair that atheists require other belief systems about the supernatural provide proof and then refuse to hold themselves to the same standard.

I’m not trying to defend a particular god with this site. So let me ask you a question… Why do you make the assumption that I’m trying to defend a certain god? That’s a typical, and often fatal, atheist mistake. Just because a person defends the concept of a god doesn’t automatically mean that they believe in a particular god or hold to a particular religious belief.

“Yes, indifference would be considered agnostic.”
“If you aren’t sure then you are agnostic.”

So you’re saying believers are sure they are right? Or just decided what to believe?
If you say “either you believe or you don’t”, isn’t that saying there’s no 3rd option, and agnostic would be one of them?

No that’s not what I’m saying. What I meant by that was that there are two beliefs, belief that god(s) exist or belief that god(s) doesn’t exist. They are opposing beliefs, opposites like wet and dry, on and off. If you claim belief and aren’t the one then you are the other. Those who don’t claim belief, are indifferent, don’t care, aren’t sure, don’t have time to consider the evidence/arguments, etc. are agnostic.

Let me try to explain it this way. There are people who have decided to believe that there is a god or gods (theists). There are also people who have decided there are no gods (atheists). There are people who haven’t decided yet (agnostics).

I hope this wasn’t too long, I’d like to hear your response.

Please don’t be concerned with the length. I look forward to the discussions.

Well, I enjoy the discussions even though I have limited time.

The problem I have with atheists bringing religion into a discussion is that, not only is it presumptuous to assume that I’m religious, but also its a typical slight of hand tactic for anti-god arguments. Most atheists I’ve encountered believe god doesn’t exist because they are anti-god and anti-religion. When god is spoken about outside the context of religion the atheists will almost always bring religion into the argument and try to argue against god because of religious blind faith. Most atheists I encounter think that if a person believes gods exist, they believe it because they have religious reasons. It felt like you were doing the same when you brought Christianity into the discussion.

There are people who believe in the supernatural because a wholly naturalistic argument doesn’t hold water. The study of DNA is what made hard core atheist Antony Flew change his mind and declare that there must be a causal agent at work. Study of history and archeology is what made atheist Lee Strobel change his mind. There is a ton of evidence to points to a causal agent and/or design in the universe. Many scientists/professors are silenced and fired for not taking a naturalistic view of the universe. Ben Stein’s movie Expelled was really eye opening. Typically when I bring up evidence for design in the universe the atheist’s counter argument is that the research can’t be valid because its promoted by a religious ministry. It’s a biased filter and it’s a good way to remain closed minded.

Anyway yes, I agree with you, if a religion demands belief in a particular god then there is a good chance that the proponents of that religion are atheistic to all other gods. I think I already agreed with that. But I also said that they may be agnostic as well. It’s not my place to make assumptions about what others believe.

I agree with you when you say:

“Yes, but god is a concept that is impossible to be proven true (at least currently). That’s why we rely on evidence.”

But I’m not sure if we agree on what “proof” is, what “God” is, and what would count as “evidence”. (we can discuss this later if appropriate or necessary)

I’m not sure what there would be much to discuss when it comes to those terms unless you are interested in arguing semantics. I think they are already well defined. But I’m all ears if you want to.

“because there aren’t different degrees of belief.”

I disagree, or maybe I disagree what believe means. I believe just as there are varying degrees of confidence, varying degrees of justification for belief, there are varying degrees of belief. We often say “which is more BELIEVABLE?”, where we compare the plausibility, likelihood, accuracy and confidence of believing something to be true.

Well, yes, that’s where evidence comes in. The more evidence presented for an argument the more believable it is. But even so, this still sounds like a semantics game to me. The “varying degrees of confidence…justification…belief” are WITHIN the belief. The original belief still exists. For example, if I were to say I believe a god exists, but I don’t believe it as strongly as I believe my grandmother exists, I’m still saying that I believe a god exists. Despite my believing a god exists less then believing my grandmother exists, I still believe that a god exists. The strength of belief does nothing to help or hinder the original belief – it’s an unnecessary designation and it only serves to confuse and manipulate.

“Should I come up empty or refuse to take the time to consider the evidence then I remain agnostic.”

Fair enough, however, I think people conveniently use the simplest words to describe themselves, when they can count on others to know what they’re communicating.

A Christian would simply say “I am a Christian” without having to tell you “I’m agnostic about all gods except that of the Bible”. An agnostic, or atheist, would simply say “I believe in no gods” or “I’m an atheist”, they may not use the terms correctly, they simply pick the term that best communicates the meaning they want (to people who are not sure what agnostic means, they’re less likely going to hear it).

That’s another reason why it’s important to distinguish between those who believe in a god out side of the context of religion because religion involves faith. Religions believe things based on traditions, teachings and faith. That doesn’t make their belief any less valid, however, it does make is less reliable. I don’t really see what difference it makes though. Belief is belief no matter what it’s based on. Atheism is “the belief that god doesn’t exist” – not “the belief that god doesn’t exist based on (fill in the blank)”. The definition is not based on why for a particular individual or organization.

“I say that atheists need to defend their belief because they demand that theists defend their beliefs.”

I agree, however, atheists don’t believe the burden of proof is on them to prove something “doesn’t exist” as this standard is never applied to anything else. I will also concede, that there’s a difference between justifying and explaining your belief, and providing evidence of something being true.

You said: “I will also concede, that there’s a difference between justifying and explaining your belief, and providing evidence of something being true.” Wouldn’t providing evidence be the same as providing justification? Burden of proof is a SHARED responsibility. Atheists may not believe that they have any responsibility for burden of proof, but they still do. Think of a court case. Both prosecution AND defendants must provide evidence for their case. Atheists have put theists on trial. Atheists are the prosecution and theists are the defendants. Atheists don’t get a pardon from defending their belief just because it’s difficult or impossible to prove something doesn’t exist. It’s a cop out plain and simple. How convenient to have a belief that you don’t have a responsibility for defending!

The question should never be PROVE god exists, but rather lets look at the evidence. Both sides present pretty decent evidence for their belief.

This is the problem. Atheists REQUIRE PROOF. Why do I feel like I’m repeating myself. I could understand if atheists demanded evidence, but they don’t, they demand PROOF. It’s an unfair requirement. Atheists require proof, but when you show them evidence they snub their noses in the air and say “I refuse to look at your evidence. Please bring me PROOF.” You can’t get much more closed minded then that. That’s Dawkin’s entire message. He even admits that it’s possible that god exists, but he doesn’t believe it. When you present evidence he refuses to consider it and demands proof.

You said “no” to my question “Wouldn’t providing evidence be the same as providing justification?”, then you stated that “Providing evidence may be included as many ways to justify your belief,” so which is it? To me providing evidence is a way to provide justification. Of course there are more ways then just providing evidence to justify a belief, that’s obvious.

I asked you that question because you originally stated that …”there’s a difference between justifying and explaining your belief, and providing evidence of something being true.”. To which I responded that providing evidence is the same as providing justification. You disagreed with that then the very next sentence agreed with it. You are very confusing. I’m not sure I follow what you are trying to get at and it sounds like you are promoting sometype of intellectual relativism.

Denial is a good word to use, but I think I like the term closed minded better.

You’re right, if you’re in a court case, both sides must provide evidence, but that’s no longer “defending a belief” it’s “proving a case”.

What about defending a belief BY providing a case? I don’t see the distinction you are trying to make. If a person has a belief and then goes out to present a case to defend that belief then he/she has defended his/her belief by providing a case. It’s the same thing.

Remember, anybody can believe illogical, unsupported, irrational claims, but they should all be able to defend it by explaining WHY they believe them (even if the answer is “just because I want to”).

Agreed, however, the problem I have with this is what I’ve been trying to communicate. Atheists – for the most part – don’t allow supporters of the supernatural to so easily explain away their belief. It’s that double standard I was talking about earlier. Atheists demand that proponents of god provide proof, but are ok with saying that they believe no gods exist “just because I want to”. The atheist’s message is that people who believe in a god are the ones who are illogical, irrational, unsupported, etc., and that they are somehow logical, rational, etc.

“Atheists REQUIRE PROOF.”
No, slow down, atheists only “require proof” if they’re demanded to be convinced. They could care less what others believe, BUT, they’ll also leave people alone if they admit “this is why I believe in God”, in the same way, they’d ask you leave them alone if you were told “this is why I don’t”. You can know why one does/doesn’t believe something, without agreeing with their reasoning, you can’t convince a denier, and you won’t waste time with a person uninterested in the conversation.

You don’t know many atheists do you? That’s been your experience, perhaps, but being in the position I’m in, the atheists you describe are few and far between. I’ve had atheists threaten my life because of this site. That’s one of the reasons it exists. I want the world to know that atheism is NOT the easy going, demand free, accepting organization (for lack of a better term) that you claim it to be. Atheists are good at manipulating and putting on the persona you describe, but nothing could be further from the truth.

If I were just a little more cynical I would wonder if atheism weren’t anything more then simply a front for the abolition of religion and believers in the supernatural. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and their ilk have explicitly declared their desire for a world wide society that is free of religion even in the privacy of one’s home.

Atheism cleverly aligns itself with science (and vise versa) to gain a social advantage, one that says, if you don’t believe what science says then you’re going against society and deserve to be branded a religious nut. It’s a message that permeates it’s ranks and one that is very clear to those of us who have left the cult (for lack of a better term) of atheism. It’s a very dangerous and manipulative organization (for lack of a better term).

Ultimately, I’m afraid that not everything is a relative as you think. There are absolutes and it’s important to remember that objective truth is fact regardless of what a person believes. Science and atheism are masters of acknowledging absolute truth, but only when it’s convenient to their cause. If something goes against their cause/belief then all of a sudden it’s relative and those in opposition must bear the burden of proof (e.g., Intelligent Design). In my original reply I shared with you the definition of atheism. That is an absolute truth no matter what people designate atheism to be (“strong atheism”, “weak atheism”, “agnostic atheism”, etc.). Part of remaining logical in one’s critical thinking process is to keep the ability to realize absolute truth from ideas that are relative.

Alan Bloom talks about this in The Closing of the American Mind. He tells us that belief in absolute truth is what promotes intellectual inquiry and fosters educational excellence, since learning the objective truth about things is a prize worth striving for. His point was that it is relativism which promotes intellectual laziness and undermines quality education, since everybody can have his own truth without any effort and no one’s truth is any truer than anybody else’s.

Sometimes facts are difficult to find and produce much controversy, but that doesn’t make them less factual. It really feels to me that you are promoting relative truth here and it doesn’t align very well with the changes in thinking that I’ve made as I’ve parted ways with atheism.

“Science and atheism are masters of acknowledging absolute truth, but only when it’s convenient to their cause.”

What cause does science have? What has science been hiding that’s inconvenient to their cause?

I will again refer you to Ben Stein’s movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. That’s a good place to start your research on this topic. Modern science is wholly naturalistic and refuses to acknowledge anything that remotely points to a supernatural causal agent. Secular science’s cause is one of explaining the world – the universe – within the boundaries of naturalism and to discount any hint of a supernatural causal agent.

Intelligent design isn’t science, just for the simple fact it doesn’t meet the standard criteria of being testable, falsifiable, repeatable, or even consistently defined.

Consider this :
“”First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to ‘change the ground rules’ of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.”” (knowing fully well Behe isn’t the only spokesman for ID, if you can find me a good definition of ID, and why it’s science, I’d like to see it)

Why do you think that science has such a narrow focus? Couldn’t it be so that the scientific research behind ID isn’t considered science? The reason that proponents of ID want to “change the ground rules” of science is because the “ground rules of science” only leave room for wholly naturalistic explanations of the universe. The bulk of scientific theory begins with the premise that there is no supernatural causal agent. Instead of looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions – which is what science is SUPPOSED to do – modern science begins with the idea that the universe is wholly naturalistic and then does its research based on that idea. Anything that comes up that points to ID is all of a sudden conveniently considered non scientific. Despite what society tells us, science is done with the biased filter that there is no supernatural. Any evidence that points to design is considered religion and not even considered in scientific theory. That is what proponents of ID want changed – they want science to return to an unbiased evaluation of the universe that will consider intelligent design.

I’m not sure why you are asking me these questions about ID. If I were you I would research it with the ID experts. Since you asked, though, I think we should start by getting the definition of science correct. Science is simply “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena” and “Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study” (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009). So your assertion that ID isn’t science because it “doesn’t meet the standard criteria of being testable, falsifiable, repeatable, or even consistently defined” just isn’t accurate.

According to your criteria nothing would be considered science, at least not at first. Science is largely about broaching the unknown and discovery. Theories are constantly changing and evolving (no pun intended), that’s part of scientific discovery. Take, for example, string theory. World renown theoretical physicist Michio Kaku is an expert on string theory. String theory isn’t currently falsifiable, repeatable or even consistently defined. I dare you to call up Dr. Kaku and tell him that what he does isn’t science. (In a recent interview, by the way, Dr. Kaku stated “we are on the verge of seeing the mind of god” – and no Dr. Kaku isn’t religious).

In the same vein, naturalistic theories of origins aren’t falsifiable or repeatable. I dare you to call up Steen Rasmussen or Jack Szostak and tell then that their study of Abiogenesis isn’t science.

No, your assertion is nothing more then mere hand waving. It’s a convenient way to keep ID from being considered science.

“Intelligent Design” is a property of something in nature of which its formal and/or final causes have been predetermined (at least in part) by the intentional activity of a mind: in other words, its formal and/or final causes result from a mental activity and cannot be attributed to chance and/or necessity alone. Both the method itself and putative cases of design can be rigorously tested and, yes, falsifiable.

“Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and their ilk have explicitly declared their desire for a world wide society that is free of religion even in the privacy of one’s home.”

I’m sure you’d desire your ideal world to be free of murder even in the privacy of one’s home. What you believe is good and right, you’d ideally wish for all, everywhere, do you not?

So your comparing religion to murder? The last time I checked religion wasn’t against the law neither has it been considered immoral. The reason I wrote that was not to say that the anti-religion crowd shouldn’t be allowed to have their opinions. Please stop putting words in my mouth and twisting what I say. I wrote that in response to your assertion that atheists “could care less what others believe…they’ll also leave people alone…”. You were saying that atheists, essentially, stay to themselves and don’t care what other people believe. That couldn’t be further from the truth and I shared evidence to support that by showing that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. do care, a lot, that people believe in god. In fact is infuriates them and they want nothing more then to rid the world of religion and belief in god.

“Of course there are more ways then just providing evidence to justify a belief, that’s obvious.”

So that’s my point, justifying a belief or explaining a position doesn’t always directly & only mean proving a case to convince somebody you’re right. Hardly confusing, just telling you they’re not equivalent.

You’ve changed your point about this topic several times. I’m not really sure where you stand on this issue. Your original statement was “I will also concede, that there’s a difference between justifying and explaining your belief, and providing evidence of something being true.” . You said there is a DIFFERENCE between justifying…and providing evidence. I say they are the same thing. I’m not sure what else you want to discuss about this issue.

“It really feels to me that you are promoting relative truth here and it doesn’t align very well with the changes in thinking that I’ve made as I’ve parted ways with atheism.”

First you asked if I was promoting intellectual relativism, then this, can you explain to me what these phrases mean? I can’t say I am or am not until I know what you’re talking about.

I don’t recall asking you if you were promoting intellectual relativism. I explained this pretty thoroughly in my previous post. I don’t really know how to say it more clearly then that.

I’d be glad to give you some answers. You spoke about several things but the theme of your comment seems to be that because God didn’t do what YOU wanted him to do (“answer your prayers”) you have come to reject and denounce him, even though your quest for scientific learning has left you empty for answers.

First of all, I don’t know what religion you were following, but you alluded to Christianity. Well, Christianity teaches that God ALWAYS answers prayer. He doesn’t always answer “Yes”, but sometimes he answers no or maybe. So just because God didn’t do what you wanted doesn’t mean that he didn’t answer your prayer. The last time I checked, god wasn’t a slave, promising to do whatever every human being asked of him. He probably answered your prayer with a “no”.

Second, don’t you see how arrogant it is to think that just because your god didn’t do what you wanted him to do he is somehow a vindictive being, satisfied only with your suffering? How selfish. Perhaps your god wanted you to go through your particular trial so that someday you would have the knowledge to help others. Did you ever think of that? Did you ever think beyond yourself? This world, this universe is bigger then you. You are an insignificant nothing next to the vastness of the universe. Perhaps if you would take your head out of your ass for a minute and think about something other then yourself you might realize that.

Third, “sexual sin” is a VERY subjective term. Could it be that your religion taught you that what you were doing was sin when in reality it was just normal human behavior? Maybe there wasn’t any “sin” for your god to take away, did you ever think of that? Did you make up in your mind that your behavior was sin when it really wasn’t? Oooooops, I guess you didn’t think of that did you?

Fourth, continuing in your “sin” because god didn’t magically take it away is not an excuse. You have to make the right decisions and choices and change your behavior. Develop health disciplines and find support and accountability. Maybe god would have taken away your sin if you did your part to stop the particular behaviors.

Finally, your assertion about quantum genesis is simply outlandish. I agree with you that “science is on a quest for a unified theory”, however, you fail to realize that there will only be a unified theory as long as science can define the universe in completely naturalistic terms. Unfortunately for science, it is impossible for “nothing” to produce “something” let alone the entire universe. The idea that in the beginning was “nothing” and then the big bang happened is complete insanity and entirely laughable. Science refuses to believe there is a mind behind evolution, but they will believe that nothing exploded and all of a sudden there was matter. To me, it takes more faith that nothing produced the universe then to believe that a god designed the universe.

That’s random. Are you in touch with reality? This is 2010.

I’m sorry, I was under the impression that you wanted to have a serious discussion. My apologies.

BTW, in case you haven’t noticed I have no interest in or desire to defend the presence of your God or any god for that matter. Perhaps if you wouldn’t be so quick to make assumptions you would realize that.

I explain our position and interests clearly on various places through out the site. Perhaps you could read it sometime. Try the Welcome page for starters.

I wasn’t ridiculing you. I seriously wanted to know if you are in touch with reality or just jerking me around. The reason is that you’re reply makes no sense. First, this isn’t 2001 it’s 2010. Second, it doesn’t follow in line with the discussion. Third, I just don’t follow your logic. How is the objective truth of human growth and development related to faith in a god? Believing that I “came from your mother’s womb over 20 years ago, and absorbed knowledge from schools,” doesn’t take faith at all, it’s a known fact. Are you confusing faith with truth? I don’t follow how you are tying the two together. Fourth, what does “God created you out of dirt, and programmed you to defend his presence” have to do with the discussion. It seems like just a random thought with no logic or consistency attached to it.

I just don’t get where you are coming from. Your reply made me think that you weren’t being serious. If you care to expound on your ideas I’m more then happy to entertain them.

@Jeeves

Hey Admin, let me ask you, should agnostics defend their lack of a position? or uncertainty? or indifference?

Sure, why not? Agnosticism, BTW, isn’t a lack of a position. Agnosticism is itself a position.

@Mike

Who ever said “nothing produced the universe”?

You did! In your comment above you stated “They are thinking in terms of a Quantum Genesis at the beginning. This would be a place where space would shrink to nothing.” If you can’t follow your own argument how do you expect me to follow your argument?

I just read your welcome page, nowhere does it say your position.

Did you follow the link provided on the Welcome page? I don’t know what you mean by position. I don’t know how to say what we are doing with this site any more clearly then what’s already written. The entire site is dedicated to our position. The very name of the site indicates our position.

You ever seen that movie “A Man for All Seasons”?

No. I have no idea what that has to do with our discussion.

@Mike

As you now see you haven’t done well in science.

Thanks for the science lesson, but this site argues against Atheism philosophically not scientifically. You can read more about that here. I don’t have a background in science, but one doesn’t need a background in science to argue philosophy, only a background in philosophy.

But I was hoping you could at least answer my questions on religion. But you answered like man off the top of your head, there was Biblical quotes, not even one.

I gave you 4 or 5 answers. I know a little about Christianity, but I don’t follow Christianity or any particular religion so I don’t know how to answer them any other way then logical deduction. Why would you assume that I would (or even could) give you Bible verses to support what I said? I’m arguing from a logical and reasoning stand point NOT a religious standpoint.

For example you stated “My prayer wasn’t something that could be ignored by God; it forms the basis of His promises paid for by His Blood.”

How do you KNOW God “ignored” your requests? Like I said in my original reply to you, it could have been that he said no or that he wanted you to go through that particular trial so that you could gain the maturity and growth to combat it on your own and perhaps teach others how to deal with those types of stressors. Just because god didn’t do what YOU wanted him to do doesn’t mean that he ignored you or that he doesn’t exist.

Also, I don’t recall Christianity teaching that got promises to deliver people from their afflictions. Christianity teaches that he will FORGIVE the sins of people. I don’t know any religion that teaches that god will keep people from hardship and trials and addictions.

I don’t know why your god allowed that in your life, you would need to ask him.

I know this angers you…

Your assumptions are what anger me, not your irrational and illogical attempts to figure things out. Those are just amusing. Oh, and BTW, your logic isn’t “irrefutable” because I’ve been refuting it since you came here to argue your point.

Is agnosticism a lack of ANYTHING? Is there EVER a lack of belief? Or lack of a position? Is baldness a hair color or hairstyle?

Yes, Yes, and No