makes no sense. for fulfillment of prophecy to be worth anything as evidence you first have to establish that events in the gospels actually happened, obviously something a "devout" atheist would think is false.
100% proof of prophecy? So does Lord of the Rings. They prophesized about the return of the king, and then it happened. Along with many other things. OMG!! Who has thr ring? Hide it! Hide it! for the poll, atheist.
Agnostic. There's no evidence either way so, with a lack of evidence, I neither believe there is a god nor do I believe there isn't a god. Like anything else, though, with no evidence showing the presence of something, I live my life as though it isn't there. I do quite like the Buddhist philosophy. And original Buddhism didn't involve gods or worship.
Make that "Anti Organized Religion". Religions are just the modern version of the snake oil salesman.
But that has been proven by eye witnesses, historians and archeology. I remember I had the same sceptical arguments, but when I went to disprove it, I found it couldn't be unless one intentionally refuses to believe clear facts (like a lot of hard core liberals & conservatives do ). Trust me, I was young and smart and just got beat down by fact after fact that could not be honestly ignored.
technically an agnostic wouldn't be concerned with evidence. for practical purposes you're an atheist. also, i assume you're referring only to a deistic god. "no evidence" for a personal intervening creator certainly would be evidence that type of god does not exist.
I don't believe in God, but wouldn't be surprised if there was one, or two, or many, or none. I stopped caring that other people were religious right around the time I got a girlfriend in high school.
if you already believe jesus was born of a virgin, worked miracles, rose form the dead, and ascended bodily to heaven i would think whether somebody prophecied about him or not would be irrelevant : ) so the 2/3 of the educated world and 93%+ of members of the national acadamy of sciences that reject christianity are secretly compelled by objective evidence, but are intentionally refusing to believe out of pure stubbornness? how arrogant is that to say? it couldn't possibly be that your "clear facts" really aren't as clear as you think?
I use agnostic in the more general sense, as the word can be and is used in non-spiritual matters (being agnostic on an issue). That more general form of agnosticism is not taking a belief about something unknowable. It can apply to existence of god, or about the value of "intangibles" in sports, like "heart." As things stand today, the existence of god is unknowable. If we had evidence in one direction or the other, there would be knowledge. Absolutely. I actively disbelieve in a personal, intervening god.
Kind of surprised that Atheist/Agnostic makes up nearly half the respondents so far. That's a far greater showing than the public at large. I'm technically an atheist. I say "technically" because I am so in the same way I'm a "liberal." Both words have been so demonized that I find it hard to even describe myself as such, even though it's what I am. I suspect that at some point atheists will just commandeer the word "agnostic," because it's a lot less threatening sounding. In much the same way "liberals" are trying to re-brand themselves as "progressives."
I think Oregon has a pretty high Atheist/Agnostic demographic edit: This is percent of those with religious belief
