Everyone's Really Agnostic

You can't 100% prove or disprove God, so technically we're all agnostics. I am sure even the Pope has his doubts at times. Some of the most prominent atheist writers when pushed said they can't absolutely prove there is no God. I try to stay open minded to all religions yet also skeptical.

 

That is sort of true. If there was a default or null condition agnostic would be it, 'purely neutral'. You were doing good till you attempt to say the pope has doubts, since you are not privy to his mind.

Yep at least they are telling the truth.

Point being that they have no proof therefore atheism is based on their faith that there is no God, yet they pretend their faith is only a religion when its applied to theists!

 

Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

 

I suppose you have a point...likely most Atheists say they are because of Christians pushing their God so hard. For myself this is the case, and being somewhat intelligent I am aware "Proof" does not exist either way.....I can certainly prove however that their version is inaccurate.

Basically....Christians are Atheists to everyone non-Christian.

 

On this scale I'm De-facto Atheist.

 

While none of us will know for certain until we die most Christians can attest to seeing things in their personal life which proves to is without a doubt that God does indeed exist. I have absolutely no doubt.

 

knowledge level and belief are on separate scales. Belief in the capacity to know is a third.

 

Non sequitur, obviously, since knowledge doesn't necessarily require proof.

 

credit where credit is due, we can see that even Pope Dawkins has distinct breaks between atheist and agnostic which is logically correct, unlike the geniuses here who made it their pet project to berate me that call themselves agnostic atheists.


Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
=====================================================
Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
=====================================================
Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

No group combining, one and only one of 3 choices.

Hence:
EVERYONE in this group is Theist
EVERYONE in this group is Agnostic
EVERYONE in this group is Atheist

 

And this is a good piece of why you've been getting the whole atheist thing wrong all this time.

If it were 'faith' that there is no god, you'd be starting from the position of god as a given(when the existence is in reality a position of faith to begin with), and people not believing in it as a result would be in denial or lying. It's a lack of belief, not denial. It's not a statement that there is no god, but the conclusion of not believing in that one proposition.

Just like the person you told that they are not privy to the Pope's mind, you do recognize you are not privy to ours, correct?

 

I have no faith, since I only consider faith in the religious sense, so without blind foolish faith in a divine force or the supernatural that leaves reason and science with evidence to determine the god hypothesis which is simple one cannot demonstrate using those tools there is a god or goddess or supernatural so therefore there is nothing to it until such time as evidence is presented which can be studied impartially and using the scientific method and given some credence.

 

That could have used some punctuation.

I have no argument with that otherwise.

If a god did exist within what we call 'nature' there existence would leave some sort of evidence, some sort of clues. I don't think science, as we understand it, has anything to sat about things outside of what we call nature.

Perhaps with further investigation of dark matter, we might come across something.

 

I am convinced that the modern atheist is all about using attractive convincing sounding words improperly, be it through illiteracy or subterfuge.

faith

fāTH

noun: faith

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

"this restores one's faith in politicians"


[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:
[/TD]
[TD]trust, belief, confidence, conviction; optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

1) It is impossible to prove there is no God (deity).
2) Yet atheists accept as true, due to 'lack', that there is no God (deity). Therefore:
3) Atheism is based upon faith.

Hence anything that is not unequivocally proved that is accepted as true is based upon faith alone despite how atheists wish to twist it to ease their dissonant pains.

 

You believe in the existence of gods, prove it or stop wasting people's time.
I lack belief in gods because there is no reason to have any belief in something no one has any evidence for. What possible reason is there for me to have a belief either way in something no one has any evidence for?
You just cannot get how utterly irelavant the existence or not of gods are to some atheists, I have as much interest in gods as I do what you have for lunch.

 

facts are facts, I have no problem accepting most facts that are in fact true. yes pun intended

- - - Updated - - -

you believe God does not exist, fine, prove it or stop wasting everyone time evangelizing and spamming your RELIGIOUS FAITH

 

It is the acceptance of those facts you no to be true but will not accept that we have problems with. It's sad you cannot accept all facts that are true.

 

As is very clear from virtually every post you have contributed to this forum....You do indeed have a problem accepting facts. It would seem the problem comes from pre-conceived beliefs that prevent you from accepting many aspects of the reality seen by the rest of the world.

 

No I lack belief in any fantasies you or others dream up unless you provide evidence. I claim no fantasy beings so need not prove anything.

 

He admits that he can only accept most fact he knows to be true as facts. He accepts he denies some facts he knows are true. This is the problem.

 

thats because you do not understand it, as usual, and I am not going to explain it to you, to thank you for ruining my other thread.

 

but you certainly dont lack faith!

 

FALSE, your inconclusive claims are not facts by a long shot. I am the only one here who has fully explained my beliefs proving them as facts using formal logic and boolean analysis.

Atheists claim to accept what is fact, and despite my proving the facts they continue to swim in de' nile.

BTW cite the 'the rest of the world' that you claim agrees with you. Oh you cant, because you made it up.

 

Absolutely not, I have faith in many things, like the bridges I drive across will not collapse due to poor engineering. I have no faith with regards gods since using the word faith in this context would be meaningless and irelavant.

 

so after thousands of posts to the contrary you finally admit you have faith.

Wow thats just like a religion, the irony.