I'll read your book t dog if you read mine http://search.barnesandnoble.com/How-to-Argue-with-an-Atheist/Michael-Hinz/e/9781401013912/?itm=7
You really are pretty dense when it comes to this particular subject. 1. Someone, some time long ago, asserted God. 2. Since then, someone has asked for proof. In the absence of proof, what is to be concluded? That it might be so? No. Because since the assertion is extraordinary, it requires extraordinary proof. Of course something can exist without being found yet. But we don't run around postulating its existence without a strong reason to. There is no phenomena that makes us think, "hmm, must be a god behind it" or "that might be indicative of the existence of a god." Like your silly analogy to oxygen. We had strong reason to suspect its existence. And so we tested for it. And viola. Now we know for certain. And wherever we find it, we expect it to have the same testable attributes. READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY: So when anyone asks for proof of the existence of God, it has to be based on evidence that can not only reasonably withstand testing, but more importantly withstand falsification to ensure that the evidence is only attributable to a god and not some other thing. So while you like to run around stating that atheists make a strong statement which is actually a conclusion that there is no God, you fail to understand that atheists have to draw this conclusion until such time as evidence is presented, tested, falsified and confirmed. Your personal anecdotal proof is worthless to all but yourself and those who wish to reinforce their untestable, self-serving evidence. Agnosticism is not a logical conclusion as currently there is no reason to suspect the existence of God. Atheism is the logical conclusion since it's based on reason and NOT myth, wishful thinking, feelings, fear of the unknown and/or unchallenged cultural mores. And please, for the love of your mythical god, stop embarrassing yourself by claiming the science is a faith. It's patently moronic. Science, the fruit of whose labor you enjoy daily, is merely a method used to arrive at material, tangible truths. The beauty of science is that with sufficient time, resources and insight, anyone can arrive at the exact same conclusions based upon experimentation. Try that with religion and faith.
So you want me to believe the bible is a fable, but now you want me to believe what is in it is true ? Talk about both sides of the fence. So now that you say I should believe what it says, then why can't I believe what Jesus said ? http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040811.htm
Agnostics believe that there is and probably can be no evidence for God's existence yet accept that there may be a possibility, albeit slim, that God's existence could one day be proven. This arguably is a more reasonable position than atheism, which posits that there cannot possibly be a God and is based, in part, on the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance). Just because up to now there has been no evidence for God's existence does not mean that there is no chance that evidence may turn up in the future. Agnostics at least are open to the possibility of changing their minds, whereas atheists are not.
We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years. -- Robert Green Ingersoll,
The irony is downright palpable. You accuse others of being closed minded whereas you have yet to avail yourself of a single objective book that puts the matter fairly to rest. Looking inward for answers? Sure, that may do for working out personal problems, but it is not sufficient when you wish to understand reality. Looking inward then is to be arrogant beyond description. Schizophrenics look inward in creating their own reality quite apart from the one that most of us know. If you wish to throw yourself in willingly with that unfortunate lot, then feel free to do so. Just understand that your arguments are astonishingly childlike. Believe what you wish, but please refrain from using pseudoscience in an embarrassing attempt to justify such fanciful beliefs. The rationale that you employ to believe in a supernatural god is the same rationale that children use to believe in the tooth fairy, Peter Pan and so on. They look inward and allow their imaginations to run wild and justify anything and everything, to the exclusion of grown-up reality. Does it make them feel better? Sure.
I'm saying that you should either believe it or not. If the Bible was written as the word of God, then who are you to pick and choose which parts you agree or disagree with. That's where your hypocrisy comes in. How can you not see that? Or do you simply choose not to? By adhering to some parts of the Bible and not others, when you believe that the Bible is the word of God, is to imply that God's judgment is flawed and that you know better. Is that not blasphemous by your religious standards? How can you expect someone else to take the Bible seriously when you yourself evidently do not? Indeed...
That's preposterous. Atheists ask for proof of theist assertions. Clearly if presented with proof that is testable and falsifiable, atheist will concur that God(s) exists. It's that simple. But since nothing to date lends itself as evidence of God, atheist conclude that there is no god. Atheists don't deal with chance when there's no reason to suspect chance. But if evidence is presented which induces the possibility of chance, atheists will investigate it. The agnostic position, as you state it but as many agnostics will disagree with, is most illogical. You can't suspect the probability of existence without reason to suspect it. Meaning, if there is or never will be evidence, you cannot prove existence, ever. The atheist doesn't take that position. Submit evidence, have it tested, and proof you shall have. That is reasonable, logical and prudent. Appeal to ignorance? Nice try. But that fallacy doesn't apply to this subject matter in the negative defense use of the term.
Read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. He discusses this very issue in some detail, however, too much for me to get into it here in a meaningful way. It is truly a well thought out, well put together and well written book. It is a thinking person's book and I have no doubt you would enjoy it. However, I will say that I tend to agree with DerekD. Atheists will change their minds when evidence presents them with the opportunity to do so. As for agnostics, just because something is said to be true does not give it any special credibility in the absence of proof. What about Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot which I mentioned earlier in this thread and which I got out of Dawkins' book? Because you can't prove that that his teapot doesn't exist, does that mean you are agnostic about that, too? Must we be agnostic about every fanciful notion that pops up in an imaginative mind? And just because someone conjures up a fairly tale that we can't prove to be untrue, that does not mean it has an equal probability of being true as not. I refer again to the teapot or any other imagining. So it comes down to dealing in reasonable (albit not necessarily numeric) probabilities and drawing conclusions based on the available evidence until additional evidence presents itself.
I do not appreciate the arrogant, dismissive tone. There is no need for it. Although neither atheism nor agnosticism has a creed, agnostics in general believe that it is impossible to know for sure whether or not God exists (uncertain knowledge). Although the evidence AT THIS POINT does not point to a deity, it does not follow that there cannot be a God. Why not? Simply put, the only way one could know for sure that there is no God is to have complete knowledge of the universe. This is impossible at this point; all of the collective reason in the world cannot overcome this obstacle. Reason is therefore a limited tool (but the most useful tool in the toolbox!).