2007-08-06 19:59:41 · 29 answers · asked by d 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
apparently the correct spelling didn't altar the meaning of my question..hypnodork
2007-08-06 20:13:19 · update #1
Between the two, agnostic. However the most rational is:
"It is better to live as though there was a God and find out there was not, then to live as though there wasn't and find out there was".
2007-08-06 20:06:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
the answer is - No.
Seriously though, I can prove scientifically, or rather, logically, that God exists, in three sentences. The proof is rigorous, agrees with natural law, and has no loopholes I can find.
1) According to the rules of probability, anything that can happen must happen eventually, sometime in eternity.
2) There are no positions in any science which state God is not possible.
3) Since God is possible, the existence of God is therefore, mandatory.
Go ahead, try to wiggle out of it. I'm sure that, since you have already made up your mind, you will find some excuse not to accept it. In my experience, however, Agnostics and especially Atheists have emotional reasons to hold a grudge against God or religious people, and find rationalizations for rejecting them.
2007-08-14 17:51:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agnostic
2007-08-14 15:39:32 · answer #3 · answered by mw 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An atheist claims he knows there is no God. This is perhaps impossible to prove and be certain about than merely say "I am an agnostic i.e. I don't know one way or another". I think it is more rational to accept that a superior being may or may not exist (agnostic), as this matter is something beyond our comprehension and therefore impossible to prove or disprove.
2007-08-06 20:15:41 · answer #4 · answered by Stamatios D 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It Really depends
Atheist: Science is EVERYTHING there is no god, science is the only reason for everything, science created everything and science is everything, there is no god.
Agnostic: Science is the reason for everything, there is some sort of god, but no religous state of mind is in the fact.
I would say being Agnostic is more better and rational because if isnt going to the extreme and it still expresses how you feel without poking somebody with a pitchfork.
2007-08-06 20:07:13 · answer #5 · answered by Soccer Guy 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Agnostics merely claim that we can never be absolutely sure whether God exists or not. Atheists claim they are absolutely sure that God does not exist. Clearly, an Agnostic is more rational than an atheist.
2007-08-14 03:24:00 · answer #6 · answered by akoypinoy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Technically, it's more rational to be agnostic. But the more I learn, the more I become an athiest
2007-08-06 20:07:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The existence of God cannot be proved nor disproved.
There are some hints.
On a clear, starry night (away from the city lights) take a look into the sky.
2007-08-14 07:08:37 · answer #8 · answered by Iconoclast 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1) The word is a-t-h-E-I-s-t
2) "atheism" and "agnosticism" are not mutually exclusive. The former is a lack of belief in deity, the latter (as defined by Huxley, the man who coined the term) is the assertive belief that the existence of deity is and always will be unprovable.
2007-08-06 20:04:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Strictly speaking, it is more logical to be an agnostic because their is not enough evidence to draw any conclusion. The honest truth to all the questions is we don't know and we can't falsify God, Heaven, Angels, etc. The Jury is still out and in all probability be out for ever.
That said, I have no problem calling myself an atheist.
2007-08-06 20:08:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋