I would change your last sentence because, as we all know, one man's evidence is another man's supposition. I could say that the universe itself is evidence of a God and then you could tell me that it is not. If I hold a gun with your fingerprints on it and the bullet that killed Mrs. Smith came from that gun, is that evidence that you pulled the trigger? Can you give me one example of anything in this universe, based on irrefutable "evidence," that is truth? Thus, if it is irrational to believe in a god without evidence, does it hold that it is rational to believe in a god with evidence? If that is true, then we must define precisely what we mean by "evidence." Like I said in the very beginning, evidence is a very vauge term -- ask any good lawyer.
axe, thanks for the answer. i agree 100%. saying "i don't know" is rational. being an AGNOSTIC is rational. being an ATHEIST is not. peace
You relalize, that since you have decided not back up your assertions that you have conceded this debate. I accept Your arguement basically boils down to: I know there is a creator. I have no way of proving this to you, but I just KNOW. We will know who is right after were dead. Your position is irrational and you have no way of defending it. You must also accept the fact that no rational person should accept your claim. You can not expect them to without proper evidence. Also.... I do not think, or assume, you have a need to prove your beliefs to me. I simply observed an illogical arguement and pointed out the errors so that others are not mislead. I believe critical thinking skills would greatly improve our society. I enjoy showing ( at least I attempt to) proper critical review of statements made by others ESPECIALLY when they are making grand claims. Most importantly, its always OK to admit that you dont know. peace axeman - born an atheist, and STILL an athiest
axeman, if you were to debate my opinion, what would you say? if i admit i do not know for sure, but i believe death is the same thing as before birth. what would you say? just for the record, i will explain my reasoning: -to me, being alive is my brain being active. who i am is my brain. not my heart, not my "soul." -i say my life began at the point my brain was turned on. i believe my life will end when my brain is turned off. -when i think of my life before i was alive (say 1,000 years ago), i can't think of anything. at this time, before birth, my brain was not active. -when my brain becomes inactive again when i die, why would i believe anything other than it being the same as before birth? please keep in mind i ALWAYS admit i do not know for sure.
No surf. No offense, but I think you are simply ignorant of the definition of atheism. I am a weak atheist. This mean that I dont know if god exists, and by default do not believe in god. This is a rational position. An agnostic is someone who doesnt know if god exists, AND has no clue wether or not he believes in god. That is a less rational position in my opinion. I think a rational person does NOT believe be DEFAULT. A person who doesnt even know what HE/SHE believes in, is in a state of confusion. A very subtle but important difference. A strong atheist, on the other hand, ASSERTS that god does not exist. This CAN be an irrational position, but not always. (I have met atheists who are strong atheists for the wrong reasons. They are being irrational as well, since they did not come to their conclusion correctly.) For example.... Im a weak atheist by definition. But if someone specifically gives me a god to argue against, I may switch to the STRONG atheist position and assert that so and so god doesnt exist because of a logical error in the definition. peace axeman
WOW! After this thread, Im officially a SENIOR member of ET! What a hoot! I think its time for daniel to take over. Im growing weary of these weak arguements. TAG! Your turn daniel !!! peace axeman