LogFAQs > #939813656

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Seems like all the atheists I have met are actually varying levels of agnostic
coolcono 05/27/20 11:41:24 PM #33:	hockeybub89 posted... If there are, then they effectively do not exist. What would be the point in believing in something incomprehensible to the human mind? Either we can know god or we cannot. There is too much we can learn in our reality to worry about the unimaginable. God should be considered no more real than Santa Claus. We don't need to call people agnostic and demand that scientists go to the North Pole if they want to disprove the claims. The scientific method is not to make a claim without a shred of evidence in your hypothesis and demand people prove you wrong. And you can't be hard pressed to think anything about a greater power because you haven't met it. You don't know what it wants, if it exists. If our stance on a god's existence needs to default to agnosticism, then its motives also must be ambiguous. It's also weird how agnosticism seems to be biased towards contemporary religions. No one gets huffy when you call Ancient Greek religion "mythology" or some offbeat claim "bunk". How would you define a moral compass? Why does it exist? Do any animals demonstrate anything similar? --- psn- trucano <cite>coolcono posted [p:939813656] in Seems like... [t:78724746]...</cite> <quote>hockeybub89 posted... </cite> <quote>If there are, then they effectively do not exist. What would be the point in believing in something incomprehensible to the human mind? Either we can know god or we cannot. There is too much we can learn in our reality to worry about the unimaginable. God should be considered no more real than Santa Claus. We don't need to call people agnostic and demand that scientists go to the North Pole if they want to disprove the claims. The scientific method is not to make a claim without a shred of evidence in your hypothesis and demand people prove you wrong. And you can't be hard pressed to think anything about a greater power because you haven't met it. You don't know what it wants, if it exists. If our stance on a god's existence needs to default to agnosticism, then its motives also must be ambiguous. It's also weird how agnosticism seems to be biased towards contemporary religions. No one gets huffy when you call Ancient Greek religion "mythology" or some offbeat claim "bunk".</quote>How would you define a moral compass? Why does it exist? Do any animals demonstrate anything similar? --- psn- trucano</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1