English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The way I see it, being agnostic is the truly 'logical' thing to do.

Do you guys just go along with anything Richard Dawkins says? or do you hope that if you repeat the line enough it will become the truth.

2007-11-26 07:19:06 · 38 answers · asked by Mr. Eko 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Did I even say I was agnostic NO, I just said it seemed the most logical.

2007-11-26 07:32:07 · update #1

38 answers

Logic would go as follows:

There is no proof that God exists, nor is there proof that he does not exist.

If God does not exist:

It doesnt matter how you live, since God doesnt exist to punish you. However, if you p*ss other people off, karma will take care of it. If you act kindly and with generosity, karma will take care of that too. So you are better off leading a virtuous life and reap its benefits.

If God does exist:

He would reward those who have led faithful, virtuous lives. Being all-merciful, he would also want to reward those who have led virtuous lives even if they had no faith. Being all powerful, he'd actually be able to make it happen.

Conclusion:
Play it safe, be good. Deal with God when youre ready.

The same analogy can be used to determine which religion is "right". Conclusion: Its impossible to know, but a merciful God wouldnt let a virtuous person rot in hell just because they chose the wrong one.

2007-11-26 07:45:16 · answer #1 · answered by pumpkin head 4 · 0 1

good judgment? If something is created, good judgment says there's a writer. The regulation of Causalities says that each and every effect has a reason. that's the muse of technology. and it is Logical. the huge Bang has almost anybody with a Logical techniques on board. That stated in case you flow each and every of the till now to the 2d in the previous the huge bang. the proper clarification for each little thing that follows is Logically, What? I logicaly end that "something that would exist outdoors of Time" led to it. What "that" is desires greater logical debate than we've area for. You seem into it and choose. in spite of the shown fact that, Atheism is a call that takes "faith" no longer good judgment. You desire that there is not any God. a minimum of no longer a Christian God. by using fact IF there is. And IF we've a soul. Then we've a effect. a minimum of that's what good judgment tells me.

2016-10-18 04:29:27 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Being agnostic is probably the most logical choice. But I think in the case of god an exception must be made. Why should we assume or even allow for the possibility of god when there isn't one bit of evidence to even suggest that there could be such a thing?? I can't see why we should be agnostic unless there is some reason to doubt that god doesn't exist. Okay, we can't prove the non-existence of god, but neither can we prove the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell's Teapot or anything for that matter, no matter how illogical and impossible they are. Should we consider the FSM or even fairies as possibly existent just because we cant prove they don't exist? NO.

Atheist

2007-11-26 15:51:28 · answer #3 · answered by T Delfino 3 · 0 1

It’s logical on the short run, but it doesn’t get you to the ultimate truth on the long run!

To know the truth you need both the heart & mind. You could see lots of non sense in religions around you & decide not to believe (logical). But if the truth is some where else & you’re too lazy to search for it, you won’t get it.

Remember Thomas Edison succeeded in inventing the electrical light not only because he was logical. He had the heart too. He had failed more than 280 times. At this point he said “I now know 280 ways that doesn’t make the light” he kept going until he found the whole truth of the light!

2007-11-26 07:38:11 · answer #4 · answered by Investor 5 · 0 1

Atheists are (generally) agnostic... on the other hand, I think a minority of Christians are agnostic.

Agnostic means you will not believe something without sufficient evidence (that was the original definition anyway)

Richard Dawkins is not my god. He does have some good points though. And yes, atheism is the logical choice. To be atheist, is to be without a belief of a god. Its logical, just like rejecting belief in fairies or santa claus.

2007-11-26 07:33:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Thank you, Pope, very well said. I believe that a scientist once published in a book (both names escape me) that the probablitity of another planet like earth with human life esisting anywhere in the universe on it's own is about 1^-36. Thats a .000000000000000000000000000000000001 probability. There are so many things that have to be perfect for survival on this planet that it's impossible that another exists without a Creator. Never mind how the planets got here in the first place....

2007-11-26 07:25:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Ding! you are right.

Atheism is not the logical choice. You are right Agnosticism is the truely logical choice. By being agnostic you are riding the fence. Atheism is more over the easy choice because it requres no thought to reject an idea. It does not require faith. Easy is atheism, logical is agnostic. I chose the narrow path, to believe.

2007-11-26 07:28:34 · answer #7 · answered by Tim N 5 · 0 1

Why is any form of 'ism' a logical choice? Aren't these just symbolic representations of some perfect idea?

In what way do any of these 'isms' answer the questions necessary for living? If any one of them did there would be no need for any other.

They can not answer the question of 'life' because the questioner is asking 'life' to tell what it is and it is everything. What more can it say?

2007-11-26 07:25:49 · answer #8 · answered by @@@@@@@@ 5 · 0 0

Logical indeed, when viewed with the worlds system of thinking. I cannot argue one smidgen, however you cannot assess the Spirit realm with human logic. It simply does not work. That would be like trying to solve algebra with kindergarten mathematics. It simply does not compute.
But if we had scientists that could create things out of thin air, using nothing that already exists and could create whatever they wanted. Don't you think they might be smart enough to out fox a fox they created? And that's exactly what He does. Take care.

2007-11-26 07:33:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

It's clearly not logical. I could see someone being agnostic like yourself, but if atheists are as smart as they think they are then they would know that logically proving God does not exist is impossible.

I think they say that as more of a jab at theists. Basically they're saying that we are illogical and irrational because of our belief in God. Personally I think belief in God is the only logical choice, but I'm certainly not going to imply you're an idiot because you don't agree with me.

2007-11-26 07:26:58 · answer #10 · answered by Thom 5 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers