Can we admit that agnosticism is the logical way of thinking?

Not that I agree with the way of thinking; since I am a christian; but I do believe agnosticism is the truest form of logical thinking.

They don't believe in things because they don't have evidence to support one way or another. Basically the "Spock" of thinking.

With atheism; they don't believe in God; yet they have no proof that God doesn't exist. Theism believes in God but arguably only have Faith and personal experience to prove their God exists. The agnostic says "I see no proof one way it another, so I won't care until the proof presents itself".

 

The theory that all people are not created equal is also the logical way of thinking.:MARIS61:

 

Very true

 

Then wouldn't the perception of evidence play in this scenario? I mean one person need could be entirely different than the other?

 

yes to both you and el pres.

 

Do you not believe that all of us have the same ability to have pure hearts? All men don't have the same rights in God's eyes? All men are absolutely created equal in God's eyes. It's us on earth that separate the people.

 

yes, christianity is illogical : )

deism/pantheism etc. are pretty much vague concepts by nature and untestable, so in their cases agnosticism (knowledge is not possible) is logically applicable.

that is NOT true for belief in the god of the bible (and other gods of human monotheistic tradition). christianity actually has its basis in empirical/anthropological evidence that is certainly testable. knowledge of the existence (or not) of Yahweh absolutely is possible.

russell's teapot. logically non-belief is necessarily the default position. there's an unlimited amount of things you don't believe in that you can't disprove.

citing the lack of ability to disprove something is an excuse for belief, not a reason.

 

There are a lot of things in the bible that scientist can prove is impossible. The whole Adam and Eve, Virgin Mary, Resurrection, Earth created in 7 days . . . it seems like so much is based on believeing in miracles (can't expalin it scientifically so label it a miracle). Religion is really based on a belief you have to buy into to accept everything they preach, IMO.

 

BURN!!!!

True, but then my "lack of belief" isn't based on evidence; but a personal conviction. You can call it logical, but in the end; it's actually not empirical; therefor requires a bit of "faith". <--- Excuse the pun on words.

 

Explain how that has anything to do with believing or not believing in a God?

 

Wasn't God invovled in a lot of miracles? If you beleive in God does that mean one would also beleive in Jesus?

Not much of a religious person, just assumed God had a lot to do with the bible and earth's creations.

Is the issue more was there a person named God? I thought it was more of what God has accomplished on Earth and what role he has today in our world and afterlife.

If you believe in God, that means you must beleive in miracles?

 

you're not differentiating between lack of belief and the positive claim that something does not exist.

most people who call themselves atheists actually would not claim that no possible form of god exists.

 

If you are a Christian, yes. If you are Muslim, you believe that Jesus was just a profit. If you are Jewish, you don't believe Jesus was anything but a man. If you are Hindu, you don't believe in him at all. If you believe in Greek Mythology, than you don't believe. Do you see where I'm going here?

There are many different forms of religions and their interpretation of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

There are many different forms of theism. Singling out one belief to be the end all for all beliefs doesn't apply.

Also, there are a few things you can use in the "7 days" theory. It has been openly adopted that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light; which means that the universe had a point when the natural law didn't exist. That means that "supernatural" <-- Outside the realm of natural occurrence is entirely possible. That could also support that there may be a being or things that are outside this law already.

 

See I know you disagree, but I don't see it in this way. I feel that true "atheism" is knowledge that God doesn't exist. But you and I have beat this dead horse too many times before.

 

OK, haven't really thought deeply about this and all above my head, so I'll go with what you are saying.

My background is I was a biology major in college, so I fall strongly on the side of believing in evolution. Are there religions that recognize that man evolved rather than mad was created by God?

 

You can believe in evolution and creationism at the same time. Many of those types believe that an evolution took place, but God directed how it evolved. Much like a biologist may work with a specific mold and create the perfect condition to grow it in.

There is still the great question of "The first self replicating molecule"; which even scratches the head of Dawson or others that have fully adopted evolution and life without God.

 

That would apply to both theist and anti-theism. The objectivism, in terms of philosophy, can be used like this to a theist... "If there is no empirical evidence that life can be created without life; then one could assume that the start of life was created by God". The atheist could say, "If there is no empirical evidence that God exists; then why believe in God?". Both are just as "logical" in the objectivism standpoint.