Seriously, if you guys are smart enough to doubt in the first place why don't you stop fence sitting and join us atheists?
2006-09-18 10:28:34 · 11 answers · asked by Devil'sadvocate 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
IMO, agnostics are atheists without balls.
Ask an agnostic if they also reserve judgment about the easter bunny and santa claus: since they can't be proven not to exist either.
You will see their position is hypocritical. It has nothing to do with evidence, but all to do with the last vestiges of belief that they still hold onto because of the fear instilled in them as children, and continually supported in society.
2006-09-18 10:38:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is an absence of proof, but there is also an absence of disproof. This is not fence sitting. This is being very SURE that we (as humans) have big enough brains to question the universe--but to claim we KNOW everything? That's just arrogant.
We are SURE we don't know, and that we possible CAN'T know. I lean more towards Atheism, yes, in terms of being a free thinker. But I don't presume to have the arrogance to say that I can know ANYTHING for sure.
2006-09-18 17:45:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The view is much better from the fence. We look over into both camps and wonder what's all the hullabaloo about. No one has proof either way.
What so now the agnostics annoy the xtians and the atheists? Way to divide the "non-believers".
2006-09-18 17:41:16 · answer #3 · answered by Medusa 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Or slide the other way and join those who know the love of God. Faith has as much proof of the begining of life on this planet as the atheists do. NONE not one shred of proof. They have a theory, we have a threoy. Both have evidence. I think their evidence is weak and mathamaticlly impossible. mathamatics is science still, it was last time I checked. Leaving aside many other examples that could be given from physics and chemistry, the molecules of life are also stunning in the exactitude of their configuration and function. With one relatively small molecular machine only 124 amino acids long, each 'acid' has to be in the right place in the chain or the molecule fails to fold correctly to do its very precise job. But the chances of getting even this single component of life correct by chance is only one in a 1 followed by 161 zeros... My God just did it by design, chance wasn't involved... Jim
2006-09-18 18:02:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
From my perspective, there's no proof either way. An absence of proof doesn't necessarily mean that something is non-existent. In truth, I would be closer to an atheist. But I can't deny the possibility of God's existence when it has not been proven otherwise.
2006-09-18 17:34:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
AHHHH!
When are people going to realise that religion is not a science?
It is not proven, it has never been proven, and it never will be proven. For God is beyond Human proof.
Your question actually implies that all Religious people are stupid. I'm sorry to say this, and I don't generally try to be rude, but I've never spoken to a more ignorant person than yourself. And to put all agnostics in one tiny category is actually pretty offensive.
A total absence of proof is the only grounds for believing something! You can't believe something if it has been proven!
Deary me, how about this, why don't you think about your life and stupid questions before coming on here and wasting my time yeh?
2006-09-18 17:35:59 · answer #6 · answered by Chris 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would think so too, but seeing as there's no real proof for God anyway couldn't you say the same to all religious people? No-one really knows if there is a God, I doubt there is but I wouldn't say I'm certain. I think it's legitimate to just accept you have no idea, especially when so much of the world's population is religious.
2006-09-18 17:32:38 · answer #7 · answered by Jethro 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily. There is no proof aliens for example but they could be out there. I think agnostics doubt the credibility of books such as the bible but admit they can't be 100% sure of the non existance of a god. I think its respectable that they at least admit they don't know.
2006-09-18 17:31:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Absense of Proof is not Proof of Absense. With that kind of logic, you sound more like a Christian Fundie.
Atheists and Agnostics are united under the term: Non-believers. There should be no in-fighting, that's too Christian-like.
2006-09-18 17:32:19 · answer #9 · answered by Kenny ♣ 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's only proof enough if you don't believe in the supernatural.
2006-09-18 17:32:11 · answer #10 · answered by 006 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋